An Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park, Maryland
The City of College Park contracted with the Police Foundation in 2017 for this report. The conclusions and recommendations in the report are those of the March 2018 Police Foundation and have not been endorsed or adopted by the City. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 4 Introduction ...... 7 About this Project ...... 7 Methodology ...... 7 About College Park ...... 7 Current Police Services in College Park ...... 8 Police Services Provided by the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) ...... 10 Calls-for-Service and Self-Initiated Police Response in College Park...... 13 PGPD Response Time in College Park ...... 15 College Park Code Enforcement ...... 17 Policing Special Programs and Events ...... 19 Summary ...... 20 Topic 1: Costs ...... 22 Remaining with the Current Policing Structure ...... 22 Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD ...... 22 Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County ...... 23 Creation of a College Park Police Department ...... 23 Conclusion ...... 26 Topic 2: Police Coverage and Staffing ...... 27 Remaining with the Current Policing Structure ...... 28 Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD ...... 32 Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County ...... 34 Creation of a College Park Police Department ...... 35 Conclusion ...... 36 Topic 3: Police Oversight ...... 38 Remaining with the Current Policing Structure ...... 38 Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD ...... 39 Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County ...... 39 Creation of a College Park Police Department ...... 40 Conclusion ...... 40 Topic 4: Data Collection and Analysis ...... 42 Remaining with the Current Policing Structure ...... 43 Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD ...... 45 Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County ...... 45 Creation of a College Park Police Department ...... 46 Conclusion ...... 46 Topic 5: Technology, Communications, and Equipment ...... 47 Remaining with the Current Policing Structure ...... 50 Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD ...... 53 Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County ...... 53 Creation of a College Park Police Department ...... 54 Conclusion ...... 55
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 2 Topic 6: Visibility and Police-Community Relations ...... 56 Remaining with the Current Policing Structure ...... 58 Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD ...... 59 Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County ...... 60 Creation of a College Park Police Department ...... 61 Conclusion ...... 62 Recommendations and Explanations ...... 63 Remaining with the Current Policing Structure ...... 63 Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD ...... 63 Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County ...... 64 Creation of a College Park Police Department ...... 65 Conclusion ...... 65 Appendix A: Costs for a College Park Police Department ...... 67 Appendix B: Workload Analysis ...... 73 Appendix C: Local Police Departments in Prince George’s County ...... 80 Appendix D: Notable Incidents Captured by Surveillance Cameras in College Park ...... 83 Appendix E: Methodology ...... 87 Appendix F: Tables and Figures ...... 89
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 3 Executive Summary
The vision of the City of College Park, Maryland, is to be “a vibrant and prosperous top 20 college town, which has established collaborative relationships with the residents, the University, businesses, non-profit sector, and other governments that benefit the entire community.”1 In addition to the campus, the city is also home to a number of distinctive neighborhoods, unique commercial districts, numerous cultural amenities, various parks and open public spaces, access to the metro and other local and regional transportation, and has recently emerged as a hub for innovation and technology.2 The city’s growth continues to pose new and exciting opportunities, as well as the need to plan for the future and to address challenges that come with municipal growth.
To plan for growth and to assess the strengths and weaknesses posed by the array of local, state, federal, and specialized agencies providing policing services in College Park, the City contracted the Police Foundation to explore options for the most effective and cost-efficient options to increase the level and quality of public safety and police services citywide. The Police Foundation assembled an assessment team with extensive experience in public safety and police services assessments, resource allocation, and operational efficiencies. This team utilized a comprehensive methodology3 to: assess the current level of public safety and police services in College Park; analyze coordination, effectiveness, and cost efficiency of existing public safety and police services; evaluate resource allocation; examine the utilization of technology and equipment such as security cameras, license plate readers, and other applicable public safety tools; and, review communications among stakeholders in the City about public safety.
Police services in the City of College Park are currently provided through a combination of law enforcement agencies with overlapping jurisdictions. Law enforcement agencies providing policing services in College Park include: Prince George’s County Police Department; Maryland-National Capital Park Police, Prince George’s County Division; Maryland State Police;
1 “About Us.” City of College Park, Maryland website. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/about_us1/index.php#.Wfm4NRNSy1s (accessed November 13, 2017). 2 “About Us.” City of College Park, Maryland website. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/about_us1/index.php#.Wfm4NRNSy1s (accessed November 13, 2017). 3 See Appendix E for detailed description of the Police Foundation’s assessment methodology.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 4 Metro Transit Police Department; and University of Maryland Police Department.
Since an agreement executed in 2004, for supplemental contract police services which added to this layered approach to providing police services the level of serious crime in College Park has been relatively low. In fact, a 2017 survey of College Park community members indicated that more than 70 percent view police services as good or excellent.4 Community and business focus groups, interviews and surveys conducted by the Police Foundation team aligned with this relatively positive perception of safety and policing in College Park. In fact, while the number of responses was not representative of the city’s demographics, the assessment team was unable to identify consensus from community members and merchants regarding whether they believe College Park should have its own police department.
The Police Foundation assessment of the current model of policing in the City of College Park indicates that the City receives substantial benefits from the current system of overlapping jurisdictions, including cost-efficient and effective police and public safety services. However, it is important to note that there are also considerable unquantifiable benefits associated with a decision of this magnitude. The Police Foundation assessment team also outlined several of these topic areas that could be addressed to further enhance police services in College Park, including: Topic 1: Police Coverage and Staffing; Topic 2: Police Oversight; Topic 3: Data Collection and Analysis; Topic 4: Technology, Communications and Equipment; and Topic 5: Visibility and Police-Community Relations.
In response, the assessment team evaluated four options for the City to consider addressing these topics, including: remaining with the current policing structure; modifying the existing relationship with PGPD; contracting with another local police agency within Prince George’s County; or, creating a standalone College Park Police Department (CPPD) with the same level of public safety services as the current policing structure.
4 National Research Center Inc. College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results. April 2017. Boulder, CO: National Research Center Inc. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Admin/CityManager/Communications/College%20Park%20Co mmunity%20Survey%20Report%20FINAL%20web.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 5 The assessment team concluded that while benefits to each of the options presented in this report exist, the most feasible and cost-effective decision for the City of College Park is the combination of remaining under the current policing structure in the short-term, with the possible long-term goal of establishing its own police department.
City of College Park officials are to be commended for their commitment to exploring the need for enhanced measures to positively impact overall perceptions of public safety in College Park. They are proactively addressing the inevitability of continued growth in the city.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 6 Introduction
About this Project
The City of College Park, Maryland, contracted the Police Foundation to conduct a comprehensive study and deliver the findings and recommendations in a final report. The purpose of this study and report is to assess the current level of public safety and police services in College Park; current levels of coordination, effectiveness, and cost efficiency of public safety and police services; evaluate resource allocation; examine the utilization of technology and equipment such as security cameras, license plate readers, and other applicable public safety tools; and review communications about public safety. The report also includes recommendations to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the approaches taken, and, provision of public safety and police services in the City of College Park.
Methodology
To conduct the assessment and complete the report, the Police Foundation assembled a team with extensive experience in public safety and police services assessments, law enforcement resource allocation, operational efficiencies, and national policing best practices. The assessment team developed and implemented a strategy that included three means of information gathering and collection: (1) on-site data collection, (2) resource material review, and (3) off-site data collection and review.5
About College Park
Based on 2016 data, the College Park population was 31,491, with 53.1% males and 46.9% females.6 In addition to the long-term residents of College Park, the population includes the University of Maryland—College Park (UMD) students who live on campus—which is almost entirely within the City of College Park—and in off-campus housing within the city limits (see Figure 1 for a map of the City of College Park—black outline shaded yellow—and the University of Maryland—red). Indicative of the fact that College Park is a college town, the median age is 22.5, compared to the national median age of 38.0. Additionally, while the per capita income in College Park is $18,760—lower than the national average of $29,472—this is skewed by the fact that per capita income is calculated based upon the total resident population and many of the
5 For more information about the Methodology used to complete this project, see Appendix E. 6 This number includes University of Maryland students living off-campus in College Park, however, not all are “permanent” residents. Population numbers used elsewhere in this report may not include University of Maryland students who are College Park residents.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 7 UMD students have no taxable income.7 Furthermore, as is to be expected of a city that aspires to be a “vibrant and prosperous top 20 college town,” the population is extremely diverse. In addition to the College Park residents, during the academic year many UMD students and faculty commute to College Park from outside the city.8
Figure 1: Map of City of College Park and University of Maryland – College Park:
Source: University of Maryland, M-NCPPD, Montgomery County, MD, VITA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, Intermap, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA. 2018.
Current Police Services in College Park
Currently, police services in College Park are provided by a combination of local, state, federal, and specialized law enforcement agencies with overlapping jurisdictions. The following law enforcement agencies have jurisdiction in College Park:
7 “Executive Summary: College Park City, MD.” Esri. 2016. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/Executive_Summary_4f07f252_f6da_4319_85b2_982721e6150e.pdf (accessed November 13, 2017). 8 The University of Maryland–College Park has approximately 38,000 students and 9,000 faculty and staff. “The University of Maryland.” University of Maryland. 2017. https://www.umd.edu/ (accessed November 13, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 8 Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD): College Park is located within PGPD District 1 (see Figure 2 on the next page for a map of PGPD District 1). Therefore, the City receives 911 response from District 1 patrol officers and benefits from PGPD specialized services including SWAT, investigations, and crime scene processing. Additionally, a group of PGPD officers work part-time as secondary employment, hourly wage officers, in the city. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Prince George’s County Division (Park Police): The Park Police has, “the authority to enforce Maryland laws and local ordinances, as well as the rules and regulations specific to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission,” which includes parks and recreation areas in the city.9 Maryland State Police (MSP): The MSP maintains a barracks in College Park and patrol the interstate highway, I-95, through the City. Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD): The MTPD shares, “jurisdiction and arrest powers…for crimes that occur in or against Transit Authority facilities,” including the College Park – University of Maryland and Greenbelt metro stations in College Park.10 University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD): The UMPD, “is the primary agency responsible for policing property owned, operated, leased by, or under the control of the University of Maryland System.” UMPD officers are also state certified. The UMPD and the PGPD have entered into, and extended, a “Concurrent Jurisdiction Agreement,” providing UMPD officers with the authority to respond to calls when requested by PGPD or when crimes are observed, and affect arrests, primarily in City of College Park areas adjacent to the University.11
9 “About Us.” The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 2017. http://police.pgparks.com/1988/About-Us (accessed November 13, 2017). 10 “About Metro Transit Police Department.” Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. 2017. https://www.wmata.com/about/transit-police/about.cfm (accessed November 13, 2017). 11 “About the University of Maryland Police Department.” University of Maryland Police Department. 2017. http://www.umpd.umd.edu/about/ (accessed November 13, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 9 Figure 2: Map of Prince George’s County Police Department District 1:
Source: Prince George’s County District 1 Beat Map: https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2650.
Police Services Provided by the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD)
The City of College Park is in PGPD District 1; the PGPD is the local law enforcement agency with primary jurisdiction throughout the city. In 2004, College Park entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Prince George’s County to supplement PGPD District 1 officers’ response with additional PGPD officers through secondary employment contracts. The City pays hourly wages for these officers to supplement the police services provided by District 1. In 2008, the MOU services were expanded by a contract between the City of College Park and the PGPD to include full-time police officers. Two full time officers are currently assigned to work
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 10 10 hours per day, four days per week, alternating day shifts and night shifts.12 In calendar year 2017, funding for these part-time officers provides an additional 380 hours-per-week, which is equivalent to having 9.5 full-time employees.13 Through the MOU and the contract, the City receives services equivalent to 11.5 full time police officers.
PGPD provides policing services in the City of College Park that include:
1. Traditional services by officers assigned to the PGPD District 1 station, including responses to 911 calls-for-service, proactive patrol, and investigative services. The City of College Park also includes two PGPD “beats”—Baker 6 and Baker 7 (see Figure 3 on the next page for a map of PGPD District 1 Beats Baker 6 and 7)—which are each normally patrolled by one response unit.14 Since parts of Baker 6 and 7 are patrolled by other law enforcement agencies with primary jurisdiction—for example, UMPD on the UMD campus, the Park Police in Greenbelt Park and MSP on I-95/495 in College Park— these officers patrol primarily within the City of College Park.
2. Specialized services—such as the assignment of two community oriented policing services (COPS) officers and the Special Assignment Team (SAT) during large events and crime prevention initiatives.15 These are the same police services that PGPD provides to any unincorporated communities in the county or incorporated areas that do not have their own police departments.
3. College Park has an MOU with PGPD officers to work in the city as secondary, off-duty employment. A pool of PGPD officers, selected by a PGPD commander, fill a schedule that strives to provide at least two on-duty officers around the clock, and a team of 4-5 extra officers during special events such as UMD home football games, anticipated busy weekends, and other as-needed times. The full and part time officers are intended “to be a hybrid of beat, community oriented policing services (COPS), and crime suppression
12 The contract allows for four officers to work fulltime on College Park. In 2017, only two were employed under this agreement. 13 Officers employed part-time by the City are paid for the actual hours worked not for training or vacation or other absences. The MOU also provides for the City to reimburse the County for patrol car mileage accrued during College Park patrol. 14 A “beat” is a geographic area normally patrolled by one police officer. 15 Each PGPD District has a Special Assignment Team, which is a separate team that uses hot spot trends and other crime data to address specific concerns, including robbery suppression and auto theft. Evans, Lauren. “Meet Maj. Hector Velez, the New District 1 Commander of the Prince George’s County Police.” March 8, 2011. Patch. https://patch.com/maryland/collegepark/meet-maj-hector-velez-the-new-dist-1-commander-of-the0789cde016 (accessed December 4, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 11 officers.”16 The goal is to use the police program to enhance and supplement police visibility and services citywide. The combination of full and part time contract PGPD officers is designed to increase the full-time staffing equivalent to approximately 11.5 officers to supplement the PGPD beats, special teams, and COPS officers in College Park.
Figure 3: PGPD District 1 Beats Baker 6 (B6) and Baker 7 (B7) in College Park:
Source: Prince George’s County District 1 Beat Map: https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2650.
4. Another pair of contracted officers assigned specifically to patrol the downtown area during the peak bar hours—11:30 p.m. – 4:00 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays. These officers were added in 2015, and are partially funded by the Downtown College Park Management Authority (DCPMA) and local bar owners. These officers patrol, on foot, in the downtown area and are, “generally expected to help keep the peace in this area,
16 Ryan, Bob. “2017 Police History Narrative.” Unpublished. Provided by City of College Park Director of Public Services to assessment team electronically on June 26, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team June – December 2017.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 12 minimize jaywalking as part of a joint pedestrian safety initiative, coordinate with bar private security to gain patron compliance to keep public walkways clear, and help keep pedestrians out of the travel portion of the road.”17 They are also on duty for UMD events known to draw large crowds to campus, such as football or basketball games.18
A detailed breakdown of the patrol assignments was sought by the Police Foundation assessment team through a database from Prince George’s County. The PGPD patrol officer activities in College Park from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 was used to gain a better understanding of patrol assignment methods. The data represented 17,002 records for that period, which included both calls-for-service response and self-initiated activity.19 The table below depicts the aggregate number of activities of College Park contract officers and PGPD District 1 officers by calls-for-service response and self-initiated activity.
PGPD Services in College Park: Contract Officers and PGPD District 1 Officers20 Total Incidents Calls-for-Service Self-Initiated Incidents response PGPD District 1 Officers 10,468 (62%) 7,217 (93%) 3,251 (35%) PGPD Contract Officers 6,534 (38%) 547 (7%) 5,987 (65%) Total 17,002 7,764 9,238
Calls-for-Service and Self-Initiated Police Response in College Park
Because of coordinated efforts and procedures, calls-for-service that originate in College Park are handled in a consistent manner. PGPD District 1 patrol officers are expected to handle the bulk of the calls-for-service workload. The contract officers are expected to engage primarily in self-initiated activities. As demonstrated in the table below, most of the calls-for-service that are initiated by College Park residents are “maintenance” or “quality-of-life” issues, rather than serious crimes. Though the other calls listed may end up in a crime report, the initial call is generated by a concern of disorder or nuisance.
17 Ryan, Bob. “2017 Police History Narrative.” Unpublished. Provided by City of College Park Director of Public Services to assessment team electronically on June 26, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team June – December 2017. 18 Ryan, Bob. “2017 Police History Narrative.” Unpublished. Provided by City of College Park Director of Public Services to assessment team electronically on June 26, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team June – December 2017. 19 Calls-for-service response is when an officer is dispatched to a location at the request of a resident. Self-initiated incidents occur when an officer uses their discretion to initiate contact with a member of the public such as through a traffic stop. 20 Prince George’s County. PGPD Dispatch Data: July 2016 – June 30, 2017. Provided to assessment team by City of College Park Director of Public Services electronically on February 28, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team February – December 2017.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 13
Most Frequent Calls-for-Service in College Park (By Responding Agency, High-to-Low)21 PGPD District 1 Officers PGPD Contract Officers UMPD Disorderly (842) Noise Complaint (80) Assist Other Agency (414)
Accident (605) Disorderly (78) Assist Motorist (154) Theft Report (352) Party Complaint (61) Accident (109) Unknown Trouble (264) Accident (34) Traffic Stop (105) Suspicious Person (261) Traffic Complaint (30) Walk Thru (100)
Check Welfare (258) Loud Music Complaint (24) Check on the Welfare (94) Check Welfare Combined (256) Suspicious Person (23) Crime Initiative (88)
Domestic (251) Check Welfare Combined (21) Other Incident (83) Property Alarm Commercial (226) Property Alarm Commercial Special Check (79) (18) Hit and Run (224) Suspicious Occupied Escort (71) Automobile (18)
Self-initiated activities by officers in College Park appear to demonstrate a focus on traffic enforcement and low-level events. Self-initiated activity occurs when officers use their discretion to initiate a contact with a member of the public, such as traffic stop. As demonstrated in the chart on the next page, traffic stops are the second-most-common self- initiated activity for both PGPD District 1 and Contract officers and most-common self-initiated activity for UMPD and MTPD officers. Likewise, the fact that premise checks and walk-thrus are high for all PGPD officers and for UMPD, demonstrates that law enforcement officers in College Park initiate the significant majority of their contacts based on low-level incidents, not serious crimes.
21 Data for the PGPD District 1 and Contract Officers was gathered from Prince George’s County. PGPD Dispatch Data: July 2016 – June 30, 2017. Provided to assessment team by City of College Park Director of Public Services electronically on February 28, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team February 2017 – January 2018. Data from the UMPD was gathered from University of Maryland Police Department. UMPD Dispatch Data 2016. Reviewed by assessment team February 2017 – January 2018.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 14 Most Frequent Self-Initiated Activities in College Park (By Agency High-to-Low)22 PGPD District 1 Officers PGPD Contract Officers UMPD MTPD Premise Check (1,454) Premise Check (3,463) Traffic Stop (5,971) Traffic Stop (115) Traffic Stop (1,051) Traffic Stop (1,931) Walk Thru (4,535) Subject Stop (49) Paper Service (136) Subject Stop (131) Special Check Theft (24) (4,213) Tackup* (121) Noise Complaint (109) Crime Initiative Disorderly Person (3,312) (20) Subject Stop (56) Traffic Complaint (71) Assist Other Unoccupied Vehicle Agency (223) (20) Accident (44) Party Complaint (61) Assist Motorist Destruction of (113) Property (18) Traffic Complaint (40) Suspicious Occupied Suspicious Person Check Welfare (15) Auto (48) (64) Miscellaneous Police Assist (35) Accident (51) Domestic Violence Incident (37) Report Request (15) Theft Report (36) Suspicious Auto (22) Disorderly (44) Sick Person (14) Assist (30) Disorderly (21) Suspicious Vehicle Area Check (12) (44) *Tackup refers to the posting of judicial orders.
PGPD Response Time in College Park
Response time is defined as the average time it takes from when a 911 call is received to the time an officer indicates that they have arrived at the location where the call was generated.23 In Prince George’s County, the Prince George’s County Emergency Communications Center (ECC) serves as the public safety answering point (PSAP) for all 911 calls. 911 call-takers and dispatchers in the PSAP determine where the caller is located and dispatch officers to respond to the calls based on the severity of the call and the locations of available officers.
22 Data for the PGPD District 1 and Contract Officers was gathered from Prince George’s County. PGPD Dispatch Data: July 2016 – June 30, 2017. Provided to assessment team by City of College Park Director of Public Services electronically on February 28, 2017. Data from the UMPD was gathered from University of Maryland Police Department. UMPD Dispatch Data 2016. Data for the MTPD was gathered from the Metro Transit Police Department. MTPD Dispatch Data 2016. All data reviewed by assessment team February 2017 – January 2018. 23 McViker, Nate. “Embracing Technology to Decrease Law Enforcement Response Time.” February 28, 2016. National Sheriffs’ Association. https://www.sheriffs.org/content/embracing-technology-decrease-law- enforcement-response-time (accessed January 15, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 15 What is Response Time? Response time refers to the time it takes, on average, from the time a 911 call is made by an individual to the time an officer indicates that they have arrived at the location where the call was generated.
Source: McViker, Nate. “Embracing Technology to Decrease Law Enforcement Response Time.” February 28, 2016. National Sheriffs’ Association. https://www.sheriffs.org/content/embracing-technology-decrease-law- enforcement-response-time (accessed January 15, 2018).
To determine if this system best serves the needs of College Park, the Police Foundation assessment team analyzed available data regarding PGPD response times in College Park. During 2016, PGPD District 1 beat patrol and City contract officers responded to 7,764 calls-for- service.24 Of that total, approximately 57% (4,434) of the calls that PGPD District 1 and contract officers responded to, included an arrival time. The assessment team learned that for approximately 43% (3,330) of the calls-for-service for which PGPD District 1 and contract officers were dispatched to College Park, the officer did not indicate to the Emergency Communications Center what time they arrived on scene. Given that almost half of the calls- for-service do not have a response time, the analysis below is suggestive of response times, but not definitive.
Another challenge to analyzing response times to calls originating in College Park was the fact that the size of PGPD District 1 is larger than just the City of College Park. Even the PGPD District 1 officers assigned to the beats in College Park, may be elsewhere in the District backing-up other officers or responding to other higher priority calls. Therefore, they may have to travel a considerable distance to respond to a call-in College Park. Since the officer’s starting point is not considered in the calculation of response times, it can skew the available data. City contract officers are contracted, and directed, to remain within the City limits, except to respond to a call for an officer in trouble.
The County uses five priority codes to distinguish emergency, urgent, life-threatening calls and/or in progress crimes (Priority 0) from those that don’t require an immediate response (Priority 4). Examples of the highest priority calls include all life-threatening calls, major incidents in-progress or that have just occurred and incidents when a suspect may be on the scene. Calls that report an incident no longer in progress or do not involve a threat to life are dispatched with a lower priority. The exact priority depends on the circumstances of the call. This is a common practice for police dispatch operations.
24 Prince George’s County. PGPD Dispatch Data: July 2016 – June 30, 2017. Provided to assessment team by City of College Park Director of Public Services electronically on February 28, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team February – December 2017.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 16 Nonetheless, of the 4,434 calls with complete data, the following information was derived:
PGPD Response Times25 Call Priority (0 is Number of Calls Average Shortest Longest Response the Most Severe – 4 Where a Response Response Time Recorded is the Lease Severe) Response Time Time Time was Recorded Recorded 0 228 7.9 minutes 1 minute 39 minutes 1 854 12.7 minutes 1 minute 58 minutes 2 1,765 15.4 minutes Less than 1 59 minutes minute 3 1,570 22.7 minutes Less than 1 59 minutes minute 4 17 N/A* N/A N/A *There were not enough Priority 4 calls to estimate a response time
According to a 2008 national study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics—the most recent year for which such data are available—58.6% of “crimes of violence” were responded to by police in 10 minutes or less and 92.1% of such calls were responded to in under one hour.26 Based on these statistics, PGPD District 1 and contract officers are within the national averages when it comes to their response times to calls originating in College Park. Likewise, for property crimes, 47.8% of calls nationally were responded to in between 11 minutes and one hour.27 Again, the limited data suggests that based on the national percentage, PGPD District 1 and contract officers are within the national average for response times.
College Park Code Enforcement
In 1985, the City of College Park enacted both a public nuisance ordinance and a noise ordinance and authorized, “a City Code Enforcement Officer, or a state, county, University of Maryland or other law enforcement officer chosen by the City,” to enforce the ordinances. Code enforcement efforts include property violations for housing and fire code violations, exterior property maintenance, disabled vehicles, furniture on the roof, and excessive noise. In
25 Prince George’s County. PGPD Dispatch Data: July 2016 – June 30, 2017. Provided to assessment team by City of College Park Director of Public Services electronically on February 28, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team February – December 2017. 26 Maston, Cathy T. “Personal and property crimes, 2008: Percent distribution of incident where police came to the victim, by type of crime and police response time,” in Criminal Victimization In The United States, 2007 – Statistical Tables. March 2, 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv08107.pdf (accessed January 15, 2018). 27 Maston, Cathy T. “Personal and property crimes, 2008: Percent distribution of incident where police came to the victim, by type of crime and police response time,” in Criminal Victimization In The United States, 2007 – Statistical Tables. March 2, 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv08107.pdf (accessed January 15, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 17 1998, the Noise Ordinance was amended to allow Code Enforcement Officers (CEOs) to enforce the decibel limits—65 decibels during the day and 55 decibels at night—set in the City Code. CEOs enforce the City noise ordinance and added a part-time positions (40 hours per week) to work weekend night and day shifts to assist in enforcement efforts provide a useful adjunct to policing services because they can address these types of quality-of-life issues by issuing municipal infraction citations.28 The state’s District Court abatement process supports the City’s compliance efforts to encourage property owners to comply with health and safety codes. The City is often supported in the temporary closure or condemnation of those properties with multiple violations, thereby removing nuisances from the city’s neighborhoods.
The code enforcement budget for fiscal year (FY) 2016 was $1,088,619 with revenue from permits, licenses, and fines for infractions comprising approximately 90% of the unit’s budget. Six full-time and two part-time CEOs, two full-time administrative specialists, one part-time administrative specialist, and one Code Enforcement manager staff the CE Unit. In addition to the standard unit work schedule CEOs work a secondary shift from 1700 hours – 0300 hours (5:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.) on Friday and Saturday nights year-round, with a seasonal schedule for Thursday nights during fair weather times during fall and spring semesters at University of Maryland (UMD). Additionally, for 3.5 weeks at the beginning and end of the school year, CEOs work the night noise shift seven days a week. This scheduling allows for immediate response when such problems are at their peak.
When community members call the 24/7/365 code enforcement hotline, their calls are answered by an administrative staff member during business hours and a CEO at night. In FY 17, the code enforcement division physically responded to 311 noise complaints. Of these, 311 complaints, CEOs responded to 105 noise complaints during the secondary night shift accompanied by a police officer.29 PGPD District 1 and contract officers accompany a CEO when a noise or large party complaint is received during the secondary shift. CEOs are authorized to issue municipal infractions for noise violations without the presence of a sworn law enforcement officer, however, they are not authorized to disperse crowds or confront belligerent individuals. As with most jurisdictions, a PGPD District 1 or contract officer is dispatched to noise complaints along with City CEOs, to address potentially violent situations and exercise police powers to control unruly crowds or domestic situations.
28 “Chapter 138: Noise.” City of College Park, MD Charter and Code. Enacted September 10, 1986 and amended on March 24, 1998. City of College Park. https://ecode360.com/9897888 (accessed January 15, 2018). 29 The request that a uniformed police officer accompany CEOs to the night shift calls was made by the College Park Director of Public Services. The request came after CEOs were threatened by intoxicated individuals.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 18 An alternative for the City to explore is to have PGPD patrol and City contract officers enforce the City noise ordinance, thus alleviating the need for CEOs to work the secondary night shift to issue municipal infractions. Since noise violations and nuisances are two of the most-often- reported resident complaints that require police response in College Park, having a sworn officer conduct ordinance enforcement, as needed, would eliminate the night shift overtime pay for CEOs to enforce the noise ordinance. This would save the City approximately $12,500.
Policing Special Programs and Events
The current policing structure must also accommodate coverage for special programs and events as the City and University increase the number of venues on and off campus. The University of Maryland – College Park is home to the two largest event facilities in the City of College Park, Capital One Field and the Xfinity Center, which host a combined total of over 100 special events annually, and require the most law enforcement agencies to cooperatively plan and execute coordinated police and public safety coverage and services. Capital One Field, where the seating capacity is approximately 54,000, is the outdoor arena where the UMD men’s football and men’s and women’s lacrosse home games are played. UMD’s men’s and women’s basketball teams and other indoor sports play home games at the Xfinity Center, which also hosts concerts and other events. The Xfinity Center seats 17,950 for basketball and 19,000 for concerts and other events.
Given the seating capacity of Capital One Field, events at this facility require a substantial policing commitment to include traffic control and security plans for large crowds. The PGPD, UMPD, and the Maryland State Police all contribute considerable resources to police football games. In addition, the City of College Park assigns CEOs and PGPD contract officers during special events. In fact, for a recent 2017 University of Maryland home football game weekend, the city scheduled 29 hours of CEO time, 45 hours of PGPD contract officer time, and four hours of downtown foot patrol on the Friday night before the Saturday game and Saturday night after the game with a concentration on the late evening hours during peak periods in the city’s downtown entertainment area.
The city similarly scheduled CEOs on early morning Saturday, just after midnight and late evening just before midnight. The city’s commitment included 34.5 hours of code enforcement officer time, 92 hours of PGPD contract officer time and 10 hours of downtown foot patrol time. On Saturday, the schedule also featured more officers during the day. On Sunday, resources were concentrated after midnight to deal with parties and the bars. Later in the day, the officer deployment schedule showed a more normal allocation pattern.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 19 In response to post game riots drawing national attention several years ago, the City has worked with all the law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction, to increase visibility during UMD competitions with historical rivals. Further reducing the potential for disruptive events, has been the recent move of UMD from the Atlantic Coast Conference to the Big 10 Conference.
With a large student population and high visibility events, athletic contests, concerts and speakers, an ongoing need exists for the city and its police partners to prepare for these special events. The absence of problems indicates that the partners that collaborate in the planning and staffing of these large special events do so effectively, as the process is both well practiced and resourced. This need will persist regardless of the policing model adapted by College Park. The city will have to rely on a coordinated effort with larger agencies including UMPD, PGPD, and the Maryland State Police.
Smaller jurisdictions do not have the resources needed for large special events policing. Multi- jurisdictional efforts are standard practice in such locales.
Summary
Although criminal activity that would be classified as serious crime is not high in College Park, police officers in the city frequently respond to calls for service or engage in self-initiated activities related to order maintenance and quality of life issues.30 Except for spikes in burglaries of vacant off-campus student houses during UMD breaks, the crimes in College Park are mainly disturbances when the bars close on weekend nights, noisy parties at student off- campus dwellings, public urination, open alcoholic beverage containers on public streets and minor thefts. As demonstrated by the theory of “broken windows,” these quality of life issues may not require immediate response, but they are the types of disorders that can impact community members’ perceptions of safety and security in their own neighborhood and lead to some requests for a more localized police department.31 Founded in 1982 by George Kelling and James Wilson, and made popular through police implementation by New York City Police
30 According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2016 Uniform Crime Report, the Prince George’s County Police Department reported only 10 violent crimes—all aggravated assaults. Since the PGPD collects all serious crime data for College Park, it is clear that violent crimes are not an issue in the City. See, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. “Table 8: Offenses Known to Law Enforcement by Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties, 2016: Maryland.” 2016 Crime in the United States. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-8/table-8-state-cuts/maryland.xls (accessed January 8, 2018). 31 Kelling, George L. and James Q. Wilson. “Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety.” March 1982. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/ (accessed January 15, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 20 Department (NYPD) Commissioner Bill Bratton in the 1990s, the Broken Windows theory offers a philosophy on ways to decrease crime in a community. The theory posits that small public disorders, such as broken windows, dilapidated buildings, and teens grouped together on street corners, create fear in neighborhoods and attract crime – leading to larger crimes. The theory, therefore believes that disrupting small disorders could be the key to reducing the prevalence of larger crime.32 Therefore, the rest of this report examines options for maintaining the same level of patrol officer service in College Park.
32 “Broken Windows Policing.” Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy. George Mason University, 2013. July 24, 2015. http://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/broken- windows-policing/ (accessed January 30, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 21 Topic 1: Costs
Costs are one of the most important topics in any decision making when contemplating a change to any city service delivery system, especially one of this magnitude. Therefore, this section seeks to highlights the costs associated with each of the police delivery service options contemplated by the Police Foundation assessment team as part of this project.
Remaining with the Current Policing Structure
If only looking at costs, remaining with the current policing structure and delivery of services is the most cost-effective option. Given that College Park gets the bulk of its public safety services from PGPD contracted officers as well as pays for additional officers through its memorandum of understanding (MOU), College Park does not have to pay an additional cost for other police services that it receives as part of the normal operations of PGPD District 1. For example, if calls from College Park require specialized units—including crime scene, investigations, SWAT, hostage negotiation, and Aviation Unit response—those teams are dispatched to the City at no additional cost. In fiscal year (FY) 2017, the City funded the contract police program at $1,281,643, which is considerably less expensive than any of the other options available and outlined below in this chapter.33
Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD
Modifying the existing relationship with the PGPD provides City officials in College Park the most flexibility in enhancing the current provision of police services, and serves to be the second most cost effective. However, while this option allows for only minor changes to be made in terms of staffing and police services, any larger increases to personnel or service modifications would take considerable time, money, and effort on the part of the City of College Park and potentially Prince George’s County and PGPD.
At the less-costly end of the spectrum, the City could choose to enhance the current visibility by working with Prince George’s County officials to allow officers in College Park to better-identify the PGPD cruisers as “City of College Park” vehicles when they are being used by contract officers. This would alleviate the concern, mentioned by some community members and merchants, that police officers are too difficult to identify. The City could consider purchasing magnetic signs to temporarily attach to police cruisers to better identify them as “City of College Park Police” vehicles. The City could also purchase patrol vehicles that are identically-
33 Ryan, Bob. “2017 Police History Narrative.” Unpublished. Provided by City of College Park Director of Public Services to assessment team electronically on June 26, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team June – December 2017.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 22 equipped to PGPD vehicles, but that are painted and marked as uniquely “College Park Police” cars, which would cost approximately $60,000 per vehicle.34
More expensive options include increasing the number of officers in College Park. According to the MOU between Prince George’s County and the City of College Park, “The determination as to salary, benefits, selection, scheduling and termination of off-duty police officers employed by the City will be made solely by the City and the individual officers.” While the City budget for police services is $1,035,319. Of this total, $802,861 is used to pay 9.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) officers, which equates to approximately $84,512 per officer. However, to be able to employ an additional officer on patrol for each shift throughout the year, the City would need to hire five full-time equivalents. Based on the cost of $84,512 per officer, this would cost an additional $422,560 annually to the existing contract with PGPD.
Lastly, the City could increase the number of full-time officers that it pays the County for. Currently there are two officers provided under this contract. However, increasing this number would also require Prince George’s County and PGPD to undertake significant efforts to increase staffing to its authorized strength of 1,786—PGPD is currently understaffed by approximately 100 sworn positions,35 and the County aspires to increase the authorized strength of the PGPD to more than 2,200—before contemplating additional staffing assigned to College Park to enhance their public safety services.36
Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County
Based on the information gathered by the Police Foundation assessment team, particularly through an assessment team interview with the City Manager of Greenbelt, negotiating a contract with another local agency in Prince George’s County for overall policing services is the most cost-prohibitive option and is unfeasible.
Creation of a College Park Police Department
The Police Foundation assessment team understands that creating a police department is an expensive and arduous task, but developing a College Park Police Department (CPPD) would be an expensive, yet beneficial, option for the City of College Park. More detailed breakdowns of
34 Assessment team interview with Prince George’s County Fleet Manager Division Chief. February 5, 2018. 35 Office of Audits and Investigations. “Police Department Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Review.” The Prince George’s County Government. May 10, 2017. https://pgccouncil.us/DocumentCenter/View/2470 (accessed February 21, 2018). 36 Assessment team phone interview with Prince George’s County Deputy County Administrative Officer for Public Safety. January 12, 2018.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 23 costs are provided in Appendix A: Costs for a College Park Police Department, but highlights include:
Outfitting each sworn member of the department would cost approximately $7,071 per officer. Based on the workload analysis—summarized in Topic 3: Police Coverage and Staffing and detailed in Appendix B—the CPPD would need a total of 33 sworn members of the department, equaling approximately $233,343. Initial expenses for implementing a CPPD—including purchasing patrol cars, equipment (which includes the $233,343 above), and space; recruitment, hiring, and background investigations; transition costs; and, having a contingency fund—would cost approximately $9,658,087. The projected annual budget would be approximately $5,581,462.
However, by having its own full-time CPPD, the City of College Park would be eligible for a County real estate tax differential of approximately 11.58 cents.37 The City could then levy those 11.58 cents as a City property tax, to generate an additional $2,982,000 of real estate property tax revenue, which could be used to offset the cost of the police department.38 After the initial expenses, the money generated by the tax differential would account for approximately 53% of the annual budget.
Additionally, if the CPPD was tasked with conducting nighttime code enforcement—thereby eliminating the need for overtime pay for the code enforcement officers (as is discussed in the Introduction)—the City could save an additional $12,500.
Totaled, the quantifiable financial benefits associated with having a College Park Police Department —from the tax differential and the removal of code enforcement overtime pay— would be approximately $2,994,000. Added to the $1,305,319 that the City of College Park currently spends on policing services, the total is approximately $4,299,319. This would require the City to spend only an additional approximately $1,281,643 per year on a standalone police department. Although this does not include the initial costs associated with establishing the CPPD, the difference does demonstrate that the annual costs are not entirely unfeasible.
37 By having its own police department, the City of College Park would be eligible to receive the full amount of the Patrol Services tax differential. In order to receive this tax differential credit, “the municipality must provide police patrol services that are currently performed by the County.” See: Prince George’s County, Maryland, Office of Management and Budget. The Presentation of the FY 2019 Municipal Tax Differential Program to Municipal Representatives. October 13, 2017. Prince George’s County, Maryland. 38 College Park Director of Finance email sent to Police Foundation assessment team member.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 24 Funding Source/Cost Dollar Amount Estimated Annual Cost of College Park Police Department $5,581,462 Revenue from Tax Differential $2,982,000 Current City Police Expenditure $1,305,319 Code Enforcement Overtime $12,500 Total Additional City Funds Needed $1,281,643
The projected annual budget of the CPPD only accounts for direct costs. It is likely that the City will incur additional costs as the result of other elements of City government providing oversight, support, and maintenance for the police department. For example:
The Director of Public Services, the City Attorney, and the City Manager are likely going to have to devote a portion of their time to provide necessary oversight and counsel to the police department. The production of payroll, administration of benefits, and other human resources roles and responsibilities for the police department will require the City of College Park human resources (HR) personnel to provide additional clerical support. The police workforce will not be static, there will need to be the capability to recruit and select new officers on an ongoing basis, which will also add to the roles and responsibilities of HR personnel. Monitoring police expenditures, processing payments and helping with annual budget development may require additional resources added to the finance department. Adding 33 police vehicles to the City fleet would also entail extra work for the Department of Public Works.
The assessment team did not calculate these specific costs. In order to determine if the City has the capacity to appropriately handle the additional work or reveal that additional management and support positions would need to be created, the City of College Park should conduct a staffing and management study. The study should detail the full duties of each of the City positions and identify some of the additional tasks would easily be absorbed by the current workforce, while others would generate new work that may well require additional personnel.
Finally, the projected annual budget estimate will also likely increase as salaries and associated benefits—including cost-of-living, healthcare, and retirement—are adjusted. In order to begin with a successful agency, the CPPD will need to be composed of a mixture of experienced officers who are hired as lateral transfers from other agencies and new recruits. Since the Washington DC metropolitan area is particularly competitive because of the number of law enforcement agencies, the projected annual budget includes competitive salary and benefits
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 25 offered to all candidates. For example, the Hyattsville Police Department officers start between $41,154 and $44,318 with a $3,000 signing bonus if they have one or more years of experience and are certified in Maryland;39 officers in the Greenbelt Police Department start at $50,086.40;40 and, Metropolitan Police Department officers are paid $60,571 after 18 months of probation.41
Secondly, if the CPPD formed were to unionize and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that includes step increases based on years-of-service, pay increases in line with other City agencies, or other benefits, the annual projected operating budget would increase. Lastly, other costs such as the price of vehicle fuel fluctuations and contracted services may be subject to financial increases as the contractors deem necessary. With these unknowns and fluid costs, it was difficult for the assessment team to predict the increase in the police budget from year to year, but it could be expected to be like the overall City of College Park budget, which increased 9.8% from FY 2017 to FY 2018.42
Conclusion
It is undeniable that the costs associated with having a College Park Police Department are significant. However, it is important to note that there are also considerable unquantifiable benefits associated with a decision of this magnitude. Having a standalone police department affords City leadership the ability to scale policing services for the City’s growth and needs of the community, enhanced accountability and direct oversight of police services, and more prompt data collection and analysis. A CPPD would also provide another public safety leader to provide input on and lobby for resources and technology to assist police, and increased visibility and engagement with community members and merchants. Each of these topics, which were identified by stakeholders in College Park, are covered in the rest of the report.
39 Hyattsville City Police Department. “Police Officer.” http://www.hyattsville.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/217 (accessed February 5, 2018). 40 City of Greenbelt. “Police Salary Schedule: As of July 1, 2017.” http://www.greenbeltmd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/92 (accessed February 5, 2018). 41 Metropolitan Police Department. “Entry Level Officer Program.” https://joinmpd.dc.gov/career-program- page/entry-level-officer-program (accessed February 5, 2018). 42 City of College Park, Maryland. City of College Park Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2018. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Finance/Budget/FY18%20Proposed%20Budget%20- %20webready.pdf (accessed January 31, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 26 Topic 2: Police Coverage and Staffing
Police patrol work in the United States is comprised of two major elements: responding to calls for service from the public and initiating encounters with the public by taking proactive action. Calls-for-service are initiated through calls to 911 or a non-emergency line to contact the police dispatch center; flagging down an officer in the field or visiting a police facility. Self-initiated patrol actions are products of an officer’s discretion. Individual officers decide when and where to begin these encounters and initiate an action when they see suspicious behavior, observe a traffic violation, are conducting a follow-up investigation to gather more information on a previous case, or are looking to positively engage the community. The frequency of self- initiated actions is dependent, to some extent, on how busy the officer is with calls-for-service and the availability of appropriate proactive opportunities.
Calls-for-service response and self-initiated work are both critical parts of patrol operations. A primary difference is that the police department may have little impact on when calls-for- service take place. Members of the public call the police when they need the police and expect that a uniformed officer will promptly arrive. Most departments manage this workload, to some extent, by separating urgent calls that require an immediate high priority response from non- urgent calls that may merit a delayed response. However, the police cannot control the times when the call is placed. Patrol officers do self-initiated work when they are not responding to calls. When there is a large call volume of 911 calls, there is less time for self-initiated work, problem solving, and community engagement activity.
Calls-for-Service versus Self-Initiated Activities Calls-for-service are initiated when a member of the public: calls 911, uses a non-emergency line to contact the police dispatch center, flags down an officer in the field, or goes to a police facility.
Self-initiated actions are products of an officer’s discretion. The officer decides when and where to begin these encounters. When patrol officers initiate an action, they may do so because they: observe something suspicious (either behavior or an object such as a vehicle or bag), are conducting a follow-up investigation to gather more information on a previous case, observe a traffic violation, or are looking to positively engage the community.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 27 Remaining with the Current Policing Structure
A workload analysis of PGPD District 1 and contract/part-time officer activities from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 was conducted by the Police Foundation assessment team.43 One important step in assessing patrol workload is to determine the average calls-for-service (CFS) and self-initiated workload. Since the workload analysis was based only on the services provided by the two PGPD District 1 officers and the two PGPD contract officers that police College Park, the calculations account for four officers on duty around the clock. Each on-duty officer has 60 minutes-per-hour available to respond to calls-for-service, conduct self-initiated activity, and conduct other law enforcement duties. Given that there are four officers on duty at a time, there is a total of 240 minutes available each hour (60 minutes multiplied by four officers) for law enforcement duties in College Park.
Workload Analysis A workload analysis is an examination of previous resource allocations and evidence to determine the resources required for a particular agency or service to address the desired goals and objectives.
Source: “Workload Analysis.” BusinessDictionary. WebFinance Inc. 2018. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/workload-analysis.html (accessed January 11, 2018).
College Park currently has a combined routine patrol force of 24.5 full time equivalent officers distributed as 11.5 Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) full-time and part-time employee (FTE) contract officers, 11 PGPD FTE District 1 patrol officers,44 and two PGPD District 1 community police officers.45 Routinely, four PGPD officers are on-duty in College Park: two District 1 officers are on-duty in the two College Park beats and two contract officers are also on-duty. Although the memorandum of understanding (MOU) anticipates these contract officers will be supplemental officers, they often respond to back-up the officers dispatched to 911 service calls, and are often first on scene. They have also significantly increased the number of traffic stops and field observations in College Park, often resulting in arrests for warrants, DUI, and other crimes.
43 The workload analysis does not account for all of the other agencies that have jurisdiction in College Park. For a more detailed workload analysis, including hourly breakdowns of the calls-for-service, self-initiated activity, and total average time occupied by calls-for-service and self-initiated activity, see Appendix B. 44 Assessment team interview with PGPD District 1 Major. March 8, 2017. District 1 staffs two College Park beats continuously. Considering days off and leave time the rule of thumb is that 5.5 positions are needed for each one around-the-clock staffed position. Hence the two District 1 beats require allocating 11 officer positions. 45 The Downtown College Park Management Authority (DCMPA) pays for two additional officers downtown during the peak periods of the week.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 28 To conduct the workload analysis, the Police Foundation assessment team took the following steps:
Step One: The total time spent on CFS included the collective time spent by all four officers on each of their respective calls—calculated from the time they were dispatched by Communications until the officer indicated to the dispatcher that they completed, or “cleared,” the call. The call time was added into the hour block in which it occurred, so if the officer was dispatched at 1045 hours and cleared the call 35 minutes later (at 1120 hours), 15 minutes was allocated to the 1000-time block and 20 minutes was allocated to the 1100-time block. For example, on Sunday from 0000 – 0059 hours, that the four officers as a whole, not individually, spent a combined total of 31 minutes (of their available 240 minutes) responding to calls-for-service.
This was also conducted for self-initiated activity, but was based on the total time that the officers indicated to the dispatcher that they were initiating an action—such as a traffic stop—to the time they completed it. Using the same hour on Sunday, from 0000 – 0059 hours, the four officers spent a combined total of 54 minutes (of their available 240 minutes) on self-initiated activities.
Therefore, from 0000 – 0059 hours on Sundays, a combined total of 85 minutes (of the available 240 minutes) was spent on direct law enforcement action in College Park. The remaining 155 minutes were spent on other duties, including paperwork, general patrol, and community engagement activities.
Step Two: The minutes-per-hour occupied responding to CFS for the 24 hours in each day were then totaled. For example, there was a combined total of 750 minutes (of the available 5,760 minutes) that the four officers as a whole, not individually, spent responding to calls-for-service in College Park on Sundays.
This same calculation was done for self-initiated activities. Using Sundays as the example again, the four officers as a whole, not individually, spent a combined total of 637 minutes (of the available 5,760 minutes) on self-initiated policing activities in College Park.
Therefore, on Sundays, a combined total of 1,385 minutes (of the available 5,760 minutes) were spent by the four officers as a whole, not individually, on direct police work in College Park. The remaining 4,375 minutes were available to spend on other duties, including paperwork, general patrol, and community engagement activities.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 29 Step Three: Similar calculations were conducted for every day of the week, to arrive at the average minutes-per-day spent on each of the two categories (CFS and self-initiated activities). Each of these daily numbers was then divided by 24, since there are 24 hours in each day, to arrive at the minutes-per-hour average for each of these categories. Continuing with Sunday as the example, there was an average of 31.25 minutes-per- hour occupied by CFS response and an average of approximately 26.5 minutes-per-hour occupied by self-initiated activities.
Step Four: The average minutes-per-hour for each of the seven days were added together and then divided by seven (the number of days per week) to arrive at an overall average minutes-per-hour occupied responding to calls for service and conducting self-initiated activities. Overall, the four officers spent a combined average of 29 minutes-per-hour on CFS response and approximately 26.8 minutes-per-hour on self-initiated activities.
Thus, the four PGPD officers in College Park spent a combined average of approximately 55.8 minutes-per-hour on direct law enforcement responsibilities.
Step 5: Based on the calculations in Step Four, percentages were calculated to generate a better understanding of how the four officers’ time is allocated. To arrive at these percentages, the approximate minutes-per-hour on CFS response (29) and self-initiated activity (26.8) were each divided by the available total of 240 minutes each hour (60 minutes multiplied by four officers). Therefore, approximately 12% of the total time available to the four officers in College Park is occupied by CFS response and approximately 11% of the total time available is spent conducting self-initiated activities.
A similar percentage was generated to determine the overall percentage of time available to the four officers in College Park spent on direct law enforcement responsibilities. The average of approximately 55.8 minutes-per-hour on direct law enforcement responsibilities equates to approximately 23% of the combined four officers’ time.
The workload analysis also identified specific hour blocks and time periods that were of note:
The peak time period for self-initiated activity was from 0100 to 0159 hours on Saturday morning, at 106 minutes of total officer time per hour. Based on the total of 240 available minutes-per-hour for the four officers, this means that 44% of the officers’
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 30 time during that one-hour block was occupied conducting self-initiated activity. This is attributable to the fact that as the downtown bars close in College Park and students hit the streets, some may behave in ways that invite police scrutiny. Meanwhile, the lowest average time spent on self-initiated activity was three minutes-per-hour on Tuesday between 0600 and 0659 hours.
The high time for CFS response in College Park was 57 minutes-per-hour, between 1700 and 1759 hours on Monday, pointing to a large number of calls related to traffic incidents occurring during the evening rush hour. In general, the highest periods for call- for-service response over a consecutive number of hours occur on Friday and Saturday nights—and into early Saturday and Sunday morning after midnight—which is typical of the calls-for-service workload in a college town where students party on weekends, and during the 1600 to 1800 hours on weekdays—during the evening rush hour—indicating calls related to traffic incidents.
This analysis indicates a relatively significant capacity for officers to conduct free patrol and community engagement. There were periods in the week that required significantly less activity—for example, on both Monday and Tuesday from 0500 to 0559, officers averaged only 14 minutes-per-hour oft beat on-duty activity, meaning only one officer would potentially be needed on-duty. On the other hand, days and times where there was significantly more activity—for example, on Sunday from 0100 to 0159 when officers averaged 144 minutes-per- hour—at least three officers with a total time available of 180 minutes would need to be on duty to adequately cover policing needs.
This information also provides a guide for the number of officers needed and when they should be scheduled to match the workload, but there are no standards for how much officer time should be occupied on an hourly basis and in what proportions. In some busy urban departments, calls-for-service alone may average 60% of the time or higher. In general, a lower average time occupied responding to calls-for-service and self-initiated activity allows a jurisdiction to direct the officers’ time to work with the community and provide greater visibility.
Under the current structure, the City is relieved of additional costs for other police services that it receives as part of the normal operations of PGPD District 1. For example, if calls from College Park were to require specialized units—including crime scene, investigations, SWAT, hostage negotiation, and Aviation Unit response—those teams are dispatched to the City at no additional cost. However, if the city were to install its own police department, these specialty
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 31 units would either need to be created within the agency or would need to be provided through an MOU with PGPD.
The Police Foundation assessment of the current model of policing in the City of College Park indicates that the City receives substantial benefits from the current system of overlapping jurisdictions, including: police visibility, cost-effectiveness, and access to specialized units when needed.
Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD
Although the current model of policing in College Park benefits the City in a variety of ways as discussed above, the City could explore ways to enhance its existing relationship with the PGPD for police services. Some minor enhancements could respond to community and merchant feedback gleaned during the Police Foundation assessment and others could improve operations of the current arrangements.
Key themes from the community and merchants focused on: police being difficult to recognize, feeling under-policed in certain areas (especially areas with lower crime rates), and some perceptions of being unsafe.
As is demonstrated in Figure 1 (on page 8), the entirety of PGPD District 1 officers’ patrol area is not solely the City of College Park. Because of this, the regularly scheduled District 1 officers do not maintain a constant presence in College Park, as they often patrol and respond to calls outside of College Park. In a 2007 College Park policing study, the Matrix Group found that, “[a]lthough two Patrol Officers are assigned to College Park on each shift, the PGCPD does not maintain high levels of beat integrity. Because of the level of workload in the County, Patrol Officers assigned to College Park are routinely dispatched to other areas within District 1 and Officers from other areas are dispatched into College Park.”46 Ten (10) years later, this continues to be the case in College Park, and has not gone unnoticed by community members and merchants who say that they can sometimes feel under-policed in certain areas.
46 Matrix Consulting Group. Final Report on Law Enforcement Services: City of College Park, Maryland. September 12, 2007. Palo Alto, California: Matrix Consulting Group. https://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Final_Police_Matrix_Report_2007.pdf (accessed January 13, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 32 Another enhancement to the current system related to police visibility (which is discussed more in Topic 5: Visibility and Police-Community Relations). Some community members mentioned during Police Foundation assessment team interviews and town hall meetings that contract officers are not easily identifiable as College Park police. Contract officers either patrol in their county-issued marked cars, or in their assigned unmarked cars,47 oftentimes College Park residents may not be aware when they encounter a contract officer during a call.
To address this challenge in the past, contract officers have used magnetic signs temporarily attached to their vehicles that identified the car as a city contract car. Officers stopped using the decals because many of the signs did not stay affixed to the cruisers and most disappeared, however, the Prince George’s County Deputy County Administrative Officer (DCAO) for Public Safety noted that there would be little challenge to reinstituting the practice or to exploring other options to create a more-easily identifiable College Park police option.48
Additionally, if PGPD would allow, College Park could also purchase patrol vehicles that are identically equipped to PGPD vehicles, but that are painted and marked as uniquely “College Park Police” cars. Each fully equipped car would cost approximately $60,000 (the Ford Interceptors that the PGPD uses cost approximately $24,500 - $27,500 and the Prince George’s County Fleet Management Division installs approximately $35,000 worth of equipment). Contract officers would drive these cars when working for the City as permitted by the PGPD. Given the objective of having at least two contract officers on duty at all times the City would need to purchase three vehicles, at a total cost of $180,000 to cover periods when a car was down for maintenance or repair (not counting additional costs for maintenance and insurance).49
During the Police Foundation assessment team interview with the Prince George’s County DCAO for Public Safety, the topic of increasing the PGPD presence in College Park was addressed. The executive expressed the County’s commitment to enhancing public safety in every community and indicated that the County would be willing to explore enhancements with the City of College Park. For example, one option for modifying the MOU would be to add resources to the current part-time complement to increase part-time officers on duty from two to three. Part-time contract officers earn $40-per-hour during the day shift (1000 – 2200 hours) and $50-per-hour during the night shift (2200 – 1000 hours). Each full-time equivalent (FTE) that splits their time evenly between day and night shift earns approximately $93,600. In order
47 PGPD officers have individually assigned take home cars, marked or unmarked according to their full-time duties. They used their assigned vehicles when working for the City, 48 Assessment team phone interview with Prince George’s County Deputy County Administrative Officer for Public Safety. January 12, 2018. 49 Assessment team interview with Prince George’s County Fleet Manager Division Chief. February 5, 2018.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 33 to have one additional part-time officer on duty around the clock, the City would require five additional FTEs (one around the clock addition requires five positions to account for the shift configuration) at a cost of $468,000.50 This would not have an impact on PGPD normal staffing since these would be off-duty secondary employment positions for officers that want to supplement their normal pay.
Another alternative would be to increase the number of full-time officers that the City pays the County for. Currently there are two officers provided under this contract. However, a county executive noted that any significant immediate proposed increases in full-time College Park staffing would create PGPD staffing shortages elsewhere and political scrutiny. He explained that the PGPD is already below their optimum staffing levels and there may not be the political will amongst County officials to redistribute officers from other areas in the county to a more affluent community. Addressing the staffing challenge could require a period of years itself.51 These would be potential roadblocks to a more significant immediate addition to the contract or to regular PGPD District 1 officers assigned to College Park.
Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County
Negotiating for law enforcement services from another local law enforcement agency in Prince George’s County would pose many of the same challenges as those involved in renegotiating with the PGPD, but on a much larger scale. The largest city police department in the county is the Laurel Police Department, with 70 sworn officers, however it does not border College Park and it is unrealistic to negotiate with a city for police services that would require even more travel than the current structure with PGPD. Greenbelt, Hyattsville, University Park, and Riverdale Park all border the City of College Park. However, as the city with the largest police department, the only local logical partner for a contracted department is the City of Greenbelt. The Greenbelt Police Department has 55 sworn officers, and would therefore not be able to immediately sacrifice approximately one-half of its officers to meet the needs of a neighboring community. In interviews with the Prince George’s County Deputy Chief Administrator for Public Safety and the City Manager of Greenbelt, both said they do not have the current capacity to staff a College Park city police department and that it would take considerable time and financial obligations on their behalf to reach the staffing levels that would be needed prior
50 Email from College Park Director of Public Services to Assessment team. January 26, 2018. 51 Assessment team phone interview with Prince George’s County Deputy County Administrative Officer for Public Safety. January 12, 2018.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 34 to addressing the opportunity of a contract with the City of College Park.52 Therefore, this option is unrealistic for College Park to address its police coverage and staffing needs.
Creation of a College Park Police Department
While there are currently no national standards for patrol time that should be allocated and occupied by patrol officers, a College Park Police Department (CPPD) of 24 patrol officers, based on the current level of services and the workload assessment highlighted at the beginning of this chapter, would be effectively able to balance law enforcement activities with community engagement. To match the current level of services, the newly formed department would need a total of 36 positions, 33 sworn and three civilians, summarized as follows: 1 Chief of Police; 1 lieutenant; 5 sergeants; 24 patrol officers; 2 detectives; and, 3 civilians. The Chief of Police and one lieutenant would provide executive leadership and command structure.
To properly provide patrol services in the city, the department would utilize 24 patrol officers, two detectives, four patrol sergeants, one for each shift and one “relief” sergeant to fill in for absences. A fifth sergeant would perform administrative duties and supervise two detectives. The two detectives would provide the department the capacity to investigate many of the minor crimes that are reported in College Park. The Chief of Police and one lieutenant would provide executive leadership and command structure and the lieutenant would serve as the primary public information officer.
Finally, to support the administration of police services, this newly created police department would need to include three civilian positions: one to be an executive assistant to the chief, one evidence technician who can process crime scenes, and one position to provide crime analysis and to maintain department records.
The number of civilian positions proposed for the standalone department is based on functionality. While the larger departments in Prince George’s County—including Laurel, Bowie, Hyattsville and Greenbelt—have more civilian personnel, it is because they each have an around-the-clock Communications/Dispatch staff. Comparably-sized departments in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania—including Harrisburg and many suburban departments similar to those in Prince George’s County, such as Derry Township (13), Lower Paxton Township (6), Susquehanna Township (2.5), and Swatara Township (2.5)—have fewer civilian personnel, and
52 Assessment team phone interview with Prince George’s County Deputy County Administrative Officer for Public Safety. January 12, 2018. Assessment team phone interview with City Manager of the City of Greenbelt. January 19, 2018.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 35 only Derry Township has its own Dispatch/Communications center.53 However, the assessment team determined that it would be in the best interest of a new police department to focus on police-community relations and patrol efforts and continue to leverage Prince George’s County for dispatch services.54 By doing this, it would reduce the number of civilian staff that the department would need to hire at the beginning, focusing on recruiting and hiring the most critical staff to support the operations of CPPD.
The Police Foundation assessment team understands that creating and staffing a CPPD would be a lengthy and expensive undertaking. Also, the department will need to be composed of a mixture of experienced officers who are hired as lateral transfers from other agencies and new recruits, which is especially challenging in the Washington DC metropolitan area, where there are many law enforcement agencies.55 The personnel costs associated with creating a CPPD are significant. As summarized in Topic 1: Costs—and detailed in Appendix A: Costs for a College Park Police Department—outfitting the 33 sworn members of the department would cost approximately $233,343. Personnel costs for all 36 members of the CPPD would be approximately $4,721,112 per year.
Conclusion
While the current construct of combined police coverage and staffing is generally effective in serving the needs of College Park, enhancements could be made to further improve public safety citywide and to address the police visibility concerns of community members and
53 Police Executive Research Forum. Dauphin County Police Services Study. December 2015. http://www.dauphincounty.org/government/Publicly-Elected- Officials/Commissioners/Documents/Dauphin%20Final%20Report%20Dec%202015.pdf (accessed January 31, 2018). 54 The Police Dispatch Services and Patrol Services tax differential credits are two separate credits that Prince George’s County offers individual municipalities. In order for the City of College Park to be eligible for the Police Dispatch Services credit, “the municipality must provide its own police dispatch services, including paging or 911 services. The percentage of hours and days covered by the police dispatch services will guide the percentage of credit.” Therefore, the 11.58 cent Patrol Services credit identified in Topic 1 would not be affected by using the County dispatch and communications service. Additional credits towards the overall tax differential amount are also available should the City of College Park: (1) “provide detective services, crime laboratory services, crime analysis, and burglar alarm services;” (2) “provide internal support services for its police department, such as planning, research, forensic analysis, records management and property management;” and, (3) “use cash or be incurring debt service on owning and/or leasing needed police vehicles.” Each of these additional credits are calculated based on criteria specified in The Presentation of the FY 2019 Municipal Tax Differential Program to Municipal Representatives. See: Prince George’s County, Maryland, Office of Management and Budget. The Presentation of the FY 2019 Municipal Tax Differential Program to Municipal Representatives. October 13, 2017. Prince George’s County, Maryland. 55 The Greenbelt Police Department (http://www.greenbeltmd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/92) and the Bowie Police Department (http://www.cityofbowie.org/677/BPD-Employment) provide salary information for different positions and steps (accessed February 5, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 36 merchants alike. Some modifications to the current relationship with Prince George’s County and PGPD could further enhance the system that is generally well-received by the community.56 These enhancements may require considerable time and increased cost to the City of College Park. Increasing the number of part-time officers on duty from two to three would cost the City more than $580,000 and any increase to the number of full-time officers would involve waiting for PGPD to staff to its authorized capacity and then be willing to negotiate with City officials. Creating a standalone College Park Police Department (CPPD) would be an effective way to address the city’s coverage and staffing challenges. Instead of relying on another agency to provide services—which may also be disrupted as events in that agency’s jurisdiction may take precedence—a standalone CPPD would allow for officer deployment decisions to be made locally and to be adjusted as needed.
56 National Research Center Inc. College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results. April 2017. Boulder, CO: National Research Center Inc. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Admin/CityManager/Communications/College%20Park%20Co mmunity%20Survey%20Report%20FINAL%20web.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 37 Topic 3: Police Oversight
The United States is made up of approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies. Most of those 18,000 departments are small town or city police agencies. In fact, approximately 86% of law enforcement agencies have fewer than 50 officers.57 Americans want “control” over government closest to them; they want local government to reflect their priorities. With regard to policing, the nation recognizes that the police must remain professional and enforce the laws, but they also want officers to deal effectively with local crime and disorder issues. Hence, many residents in smaller communities prefer their own police department. In some cases, efforts to consolidate and merge smaller agencies into larger and more-efficient departments fail due to local politics. That said, while some efforts to consolidate are ongoing in some jurisdictions, others, including Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and Savannah-Chatham County, Georgia, have moved forward on the decision to move away from consolidated agencies to focus on more local policing issues.
Remaining with the Current Policing Structure
Because of the contract/MOU based nature of the supplemental police services in College Park, the City has a considerable amount of flexibility and control over the officers that work for the City. For example, the City’s Director of Public Services and the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) major that oversee the contract officers can task officers to focus on specific issues such as quality-of-life and code enforcement concerns, foot patrol in the downtown bar and restaurant area during peak times, or other engagement opportunities in College Park. Additionally, the contract for full-time officers includes the clause that, “In order to provide the City with the best possible use of these full-time officers, the Prince George’s County Public Safety Communications dispatchers will not dispatch the full-time or part-time officers…as primary or reporting officers except in emergency situations,” such as 911 calls of the highest priority.58
In addition to determining officer roles and responsibilities, the City has considerable leverage in determining which part-time officers are assigned and scheduled to College Park. As detailed in the scope of work in the agreement, if problems with an individual officer arise, or that officer is not the right fit for the City’s mission and vision, the City can simply choose not to schedule that officer as frequently, or at all. Furthermore, since the MOU with the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) is long standing, and offers consistent off duty
57 Reaves, Brian A. “Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008.” July 2011. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017). 58 “Police Services Agreement: Prince George’s County and City of College Park.” October 15, 2008. Provided to the Police Foundation assessment team by the College Park Director of Public Services electronically on June 30, 2017.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 38 employment to PGPD officers seeking additional income, many of the contract officers have worked consistently in College Park, providing the city with officers who tend to understand the city’s demographics, call trends, and community needs.
Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD
Recognizing the positives of the current method of delivery of police services, challenges also exist that can be addressed by modifying and enhancing the existing relationship with PGPD.
One such challenge is related to roles. The combination of PGPD District 1 officers and contract/part-time officers, both serving in College Park simultaneously, causes some challenges with supervision of on-duty contract officers versus PGPD District 1 officers. Currently, contract officers report directly to the city when they are on-duty and are overseen by the PGPD major who is responsible for the recruiting and supervising the contract officers, or by the contract lieutenant who serves as the assistant. In some cases, though, contract officers who act as patrol officers during their contract work have higher supervisory status and ranks within PGPD than the PGPD District 1 officers that respond to the same incident. This situation can cause confusion over roles and responsibilities on-scene, as well as supervisory status. All contract officers function under PGPD General Orders when working for the City. Language could be added to the MOU to clarify on scene command protocols.
To avoid any confusion regarding reporting structure of on-duty PGPD District 1 and contract duty officers, the City of College Park should negotiate with Prince George’s County to: have an on-duty PGPD District 1 supervisor take formal oversight of contract officers when at the scene of an incident; formally designate an on-duty “officer-in-charge” for all contract work; limit the secondary employment positions within the policing structure in College Park to officers and corporals and establishing a position for a permanent sergeant to oversee the program; or, create a chain of command that includes a shift commander so that each shift has a designated supervisor and an overall contract commander who would serve as the de facto chief of police in College Park and be more directly accountable and responsible for adapting the police services provided citywide.
Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County
If officials in College Park elect to negotiate a contract for policing services with another local agency in Prince George’s County, a standard chain of command should be created. This chain of command should include a shift commander, so that each shift has a designated supervisor,
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 39 and an overall contract captain who would serve as the de facto chief of police in College Park. In their role as de facto chief, this individual would be directly accountable to the College Park Director of Public Services and the City Manager. As discussed in Topic 2, the City Manager of Greenbelt indicated that its police department would not be able to allocate the appropriate personnel to make this a feasible opportunity.
Creation of a College Park Police Department
Although a significant capital investment of the City if College Park, a standalone College Park Police Department (CPPD) offers some advantages for direct local oversight of police activities in the city. Like most law enforcement agencies nationally, a CPPD chief would be directly accountable to the College Park Director of Public Services and the City Manager.
Conclusion
Creating a standalone College Park Police Department (CPPD) provides the most opportunity for direct oversight, as identified at the beginning of the chapter.
The current system is effective in the short-term, but is not necessarily conducive to long-term success in College Park. Since the major who oversees the contract also supervises and coordinates the PGPD District 7 and the secondary employment officers is in constant contact with the College Park Director of Public Services, any concerns are discussed and resolved as soon as possible, and the two communicate regularly about ongoing and emerging public safety issues in the city. For example, the Director Public Services receives and compiles requests for police service—from residents, merchants, neighbor associations, and city council members— and forward these requests, usually via e-mail, to the commander of the part-time officers. Calls for police service received directly by City staff and City-initiated calls-for-service are relayed immediately to on duty contract officers by Public Services staff answering the City hotline and other City phones. The PGPD and Public Services contract program supervisors are not required to screen and relay these calls-for-service.
Secondly, while there are extensive files on the past and present development and operations of the contract program and summaries of every officer’s shift since the beginning of these programs, there is undoubtedly undocumented operational knowledge—such as the day-to-day workings and general experiences of the program—that is irreplaceable. For example, the PGPD major knows which officers are best suited for being assigned to patrol the specific needs of College Park. If the Director of Public Services or the PGPD major who oversees the contract program were to be promoted or otherwise leave, the ease with which problems are currently addressed is likely to be affected. While these two individuals can create an operational guide
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 40 that captures the nuances—such as what the daily objectives of contract officers are, the types of officers to be assigned to College Park, and the needs expressed by College Park community members and merchants. However, to better prepare for long-term success, having a police chief and command staff that report directly to City officials and the City Council provides better oversight.
Therefore, the long-term solution should center on direct local oversight of police activities in the city and the direct ability for City officials to determine if their employees are meeting the goals, vision, and mission of the City and its police department.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 41 Topic 4: Data Collection and Analysis
Nationally, police departments and local governments have been working to increase levels of transparency and accountability by better collecting, analyzing, and publishing raw police data – releasing it to the public on its website, through their City’s data portal or through the Police Data Initiative (PDI). PDI is a national network designed to enhance understanding of crime and public safety accountability between law enforcement and the community. To date, over 130 law enforcement agencies nationwide, large and small, have joined this community of practice and through this network, agencies learn from each other and adapt successful approaches from other jurisdictions to their own local priorities and conditions.59 The importance of providing crime data and other law enforcement data is mentioned in the Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing:
“To embrace a culture of transparency, law enforcement agencies should make all department policies available for public review and regularly post on the department’s website information about stops, summonses, arrests, reported crime, and other law enforcement data aggregated by demographics.”60
However, as discussed in the Introduction of this report, the variety of agencies with overlapping jurisdiction presents crime and law enforcement activity data and analysis challenges to the City of College Park. The charts in the Introduction also demonstrate the difficulty in comprehensively analyzing and reacting to data when it is coded differently. Also, as demonstrated by the difficulty of the Police Foundation assessment team to receive requested calls-for-service, crime, and other law enforcement data from all of the agencies with jurisdiction in College Park and for a similar period of time, accessing the information necessary to make well-informed, real-time determinations about the provision of policing services in College Park is extremely challenging.
Furthermore, the City should follow the promising practice exhibited by other law enforcement agencies and city governments and be proactive in providing open data to its residents. While College Park has not had a serious officer-involved use of force or been subjected to the civil demonstrations that cities nationwide—from Ferguson, to Baltimore, to Charlotte—have experienced recently, one of the common principles is that law enforcement and governments be more transparent with data.
59 For more information about the Police Data Initiative, visit https://www.policedatainitiative.org/. 60 President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 42 Currently, data is combined from PGPD, UMPD, PGFD/EMS and City Code Enforcement in a monthly report for the Combined Multi Agency Service Team (CMAST) group. The UMPD crime analyst prepares these reports. The City may wish to determine if UMPD could provide a more frequent synthesized report for public distribution.
Remaining with the Current Policing Structure
Currently, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Prince George’s County and the City of College Park includes processes to provide officials in College Park with city-level incident data. The MOU between Prince George’s County and the City of College Park regarding supplemental police service in College Park includes the clause that, “the County shall furnish daily police reports of the activities of the officers assigned to perform the services of this Agreement,” and further provides that, “the County agrees to provide COMPSTAT for Part I and Part II offenses and requested reports for Baker 6 and 7 to the City as they become available.”61 The MOU also provides that, “the City shall provide by facsimile to District One Headquarters a copy of the weekly reports concerning police activity that are generated by the City’s Public Services Department.”62
Although this MOU provides College Park with a certain amount of incident data within the city, there are limits to the ability of the PGPD to provide similar data for regular District 1 officers that respond to—or initiate events—in College Park. During one assessment team interview, the Prince George’s County Deputy County Administrative Officer (DCAO) for Public Safety indicated that the District 1 Commander provides College Park officials with requested crime data and information on an as needed basis.63 Currently, when a regular District 1 officer responds to a call-for-service or conducts a self-initiated activity in College Park, the event is counted under PGPD District 1 statistics and is not required to be reported to City officials. However, as noted above, the City Director of Public Services and the City contract program supervisors receive daily PGPD crime reports and PGPD District 1 shift supervisor summaries, which are law enforcement sensitive and are not for public distribution.
Additionally, although the concurrent jurisdiction MOU between the PGPD and the University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD) includes a clause specifically related to data collection that states, “The University of Maryland Police shall furnish on a timely basis to the Prince
61 “Police Services Agreement: Prince George’s County and City of College Park.” October 15, 2008. Provided to the Police Foundation assessment team by the College Park Director of Public Services electronically on June 30, 2017. 62 “Police Services Agreement: Prince George’s County and City of College Park.” October 15, 2008. Provided to the Police Foundation assessment team by the College Park Director of Public Services electronically on June 30, 2017. 63 Assessment team phone interview with Prince George’s County Deputy County Administrative Officer for Public Safety. January 12, 2018.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 43 George’s County Police copies of all reports of arrests and/or incidents involving Part I and Part II offenses to which the University of Maryland Police respond or take action based on this agreement,”64 there is no process laid out that requires the PGPD to report the information provided by UMPD to the City of College Park. The UMPD does publicly report some crime statistics, including those that occur on public property—defined as, “incidents that took place off campus, on public property immediately adjacent to and accessible from the Campus but not on the property of University of Maryland University College”—but it does not readily distinguish which events occurred specifically in College Park.65 Furthermore, the City of College Park does not have its own contract or MOU with the UMPD regarding provision of regular crime data and statistics. Therefore, the City relies on the information it receives from the County in its daily reports to include significant events reported to UMPD.
The Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) also collects and reports crime statistics, and reports its aggregate crime data according to Uniform Crime Report categories and by locales— buses, bus stops, metro facilities, others, parking lots, and rails—but does not provide the data by cities.66
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Park Police, Prince George’s County Division (Park Police) also collects its own data and statistics, and while its officers do have some jurisdiction off park property, the two requirements are that, “all reports, charging documents, etc., must be completed by the end of the officer’s tour of duty and filed with the County Police by 1300 hours the next day,” and that, “Park Police officers shall immediately notify Community Communications of every police action taken in areas not under Commission jurisdiction.”67 The MTPD and the Park Police are also under no obligation to provide their law enforcement activities in College Park to city officials. However, they do provide an annual report, which is presented to the Mayor and City Council and is posted on the City’s website.
Despite these contracts and MOUs, the City Director of Public Services and the City contract program supervisors receive daily PGPD crime reports, which are law enforcement sensitive and are not for public distribution. The PGPD community oriented police services (COPS) officers provide weekly public summaries of incidents which were reported within City limits.
64 “Agreement of Coordination of Enforcement Responsibilities.” August 7, 2013. Provided to the Police Foundation assessment team by the College Park Director of Public Services electronically on August 2, 2017. 65 University of Maryland Police Department. Annual Safety and Security Report of the University of Maryland College Park. October 1, 2017. http://www.umpd.umd.edu/stats/AnnualSecurityReport.pdf (accessed January 11, 2018). 66 Metro Transit Police Department. “Crime Statistics.” 2018. WMATA. https://www.wmata.com/about/transit- police/crime-stats.cfm (accessed January 11, 2018). 67 Maryland-National Capital Park Police Prince George’s County Division. “Mutual Aid Agreement—PG464.0.” October 15, 2006. http://police.pgparks.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2943 (accessed January 12, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 44 These are distributed to the Mayor and Council, City Manager, Civic Associations, Neighborhood Watch coordinators, and Public Services staff. A weekly summary of City contract police activity highlights is distributed publicly in the City Manager’s weekly newsletter.
Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD
In a Police Foundation assessment team interview with the Prince George’s County DCAO for Public Safety, it was indicated that while the PGPD District 1 Commander provides College Park officials with requested crime data and information on an as needed basis, doing so on a regular basis would require a discussion and most likely include financial compensation for the associated time and costs.68 These costs would be increased to have crime analysts or other PGPD staff to conduct in-depth analysis of the data and provide information about noteworthy trends to College Park officials. Contracted use of the UMPD Crime Analyst who already prepares a monthly synthesized report, to prepare city-wide public reports could be investigated.
If officials in College Park elect to modify its existing relationship with Prince George’s County for policing services, significant enhancements to the law enforcement crime and traffic stop data—and the frequency with which such data would be provided should be included in any new scope of work negotiated.
Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County
Understanding this is the least feasible option, if City of College Park officials elect to explore options for policing services under contract from another local agency in Prince George’s County, the contract should specify the data the City wants and the format it should be in. For example, the Bowie Police Department posts biweekly incident data on its website that includes the block number and street name that each incident occurred on, a range of crimes and non-criminal incidents that required police response, incidents that were observed by officers in the field, and service orders and warrant services.69 The reports are generated and posted online less than one week after the reporting period is complete and are easily accessible for community members. Contracting with an agency such as the Bowie or University of Maryland Police Department that already has the capacity to capture the geographical information and building a separate field in the collection to denote that the incident took place
68 Assessment team phone interview with Prince George’s County Deputy Chief Administrative Officer. January 12, 2018. 69 Bowie Police Department. “Reports by Incident Type: 12/28/2017 through 01/10/2018.” https://www.cityofbowie.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2153 (accessed January 12, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 45 in College Park would be a cost-efficient way for College Park to easily access statistics, data, and maps of its recent activity on a regular basis.
Creation of a College Park Police Department
A standalone College Park Police Department (CPPD) would provide the City of College Park the most accurate and comprehensive depiction of crime data, calls-for-service, and police activity. City officials would have ready access to all its data and CPPD administrators would be able to make staffing and coverage adjustments in a much more responsive manner and be able to provide the community with much more timely information.
Conclusion
As Orlando, Florida, Police Department Chief John Mina stated, “we have benefited from open data’s ability to both help us understand critical issues in our community, such as domestic violence, and to bring facts to the table when holding us and others in law enforcement accountable.”70 Given the identified importance of accurate data collection and analysis, and using open data for internal and external purposes, College Park officials should strongly consider the implications of data collection and analysis moving forward. Real-time access to crime and public safety data would allow City officials and CPPD administrators to identify and adjust to troubling trends in a much timelier manner, analyze historical data—as opposed to the one year that was reviewed by the Police Foundation assessment team, and be better able to address the concerns of community and merchant members and groups. While there are options available, including contracting with the UMPD for citywide reports, from the sole perspective of data collection and analysis, creating a College Park Police Department would provide the most benefit to the City of College Park.
70 Police Foundation. Law Enforcement Executive’s Guide to Open Data: Supporting the Community in the Co- Production of Public Safety. 2017. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. https://www.policefoundation.org/publication/law-enforcement-executives-guide-to-open-data/ (accessed January 12, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 46 Topic 5: Technology, Communications, and Equipment
New and emerging technologies play a valuable role in the daily work of police, equipping officers with enforcement and investigative tools with which to perform their jobs. Closed- circuit television (CCTV); fixed cameras (including those with the capacity to pan, tilt, and zoom (PTZ)); and, license plate recognition (LPR) devices are three of the most-widely utilized technologies that can conduct some law enforcement tasks. CCTV and other fixed cameras can have their videos be fed into, and monitored by personnel in a real-time crime center or emergency operations center, to provide situational awareness during large-scale security events and other manmade or natural emergencies.71 Additionally speed and red-light cameras can conduct routine enforcement activities, enabling officers to focus on other duties and can also provide additional information to law enforcement officers engaged in enforcement activities and assist in deterring, detecting, and investigating crimes.72 LPRs are primarily used to detect stolen vehicles and plates, although when placed on main thoroughfares or high- traffic areas, they can act as both a deterrent and added “eyes for law enforcement,” or be used by investigators to mine databases for license plate information that may be connected to criminal activity.73
To date, the City of College Park has installed a total of 54 fixed security cameras, using both City and grant funds. Six security camera system projects have been completed. A proposed project application was submitted to the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP) for an additional eight PTZ cameras in FY 2017, but was not funded.
Of the 54 cameras, 20 PTZs are installed throughout the neighborhoods of Old Town, Calvert Hills, and Lakeland, and are monitored by UMPD. Additionally, one CCTV and six PTZs have been installed in the neighborhoods of College Park Woods, Hollywood, and Berwyn. The municipal garage infrastructure has the highest quantity of security systems, with 25 CCTVs and two PTZs.
71 Managing Large-Scale Security Events: A Planning Primer for Local Law Enforcement Agencies. Pending Publication. United States Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. 72 Daniel R. Sekely, “The Routine Traffic Stop: How Officers Have Used License Plate Violations to Solve Crimes,” Highway Safety Initiatives, The Police Chief 82 (August 2015): 94–95. http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/the- routine-traffic-stop-how-officers-have-used-license-plate-violations-to-solve-crimes/ (accessed January 13, 2018). See also, George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV). http://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence-review/cctv/ (accessed November 20, 2017). 73 Gierlack, Keith; Shara Williams; Tom LaTourrette; James M. Anderson; Lauren A. Mayer; and, Johanna Zmud. License Plate Readers for Law Enforcement: Opportunities and Obstacles. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation. 2014. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247283.pdf (accessed September 21, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 47 Likewise, to date, the City of College Park has installed a total of 14 LPRs, using both City and grant funds. Seven LPR system projects have been completed and a proposed project application was submitted to the Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention (GOCCP) for an additional pair of LPRs in FY 2017. That grant request was not funded. Of the 14 LPRs, seven have been installed throughout the neighborhoods of Old Town, Calvert Hills, and Lakeland, which are monitored by UMPD. Additionally, six LPRs are positioned in the neighborhoods of College Park Woods, Hollywood, and Berwyn. These devices have a record- only capability with Internet connectivity, allowing PGPD investigators to download data for investigations. The remaining LPR is in the municipal garage and this record-only capability is on a server in City Hall.74
No camera use data is available for City owned cameras in the City parking garage or those not monitored by the University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD), however, the agency does compile reports for the City owned cameras they monitor. UMPD also tallies specific video review requests that require UMPD staff to investigate an incident that previously occurred and records if at least one City camera was used during a review. UMPD SOC staff also submit automated work orders to the City security camera maintenance vendor, Hitachi, whenever system faults are detected.
The most recent available summary data from UMPD (for 2011-2013) indicates that requests for review averaged about 450 per year with usable video becoming available about half the time and an average of approximately 27 arrests per year.75 No data is available to determine how many arrests resulted from active monitoring of the cameras.
A second report tallies episodes when UMPD Security Operations Center (SOC) employees monitor City cameras during active incidents such as traffic stops, theft reports, breaking and entering, fights, etc. Although some past review and active incident monitoring from the security cameras did result in enhancing investigations, in making arrests, and in guiding specific responses, no systematic data is kept. Information about camera utilization may be embedded in police reports but is not readily retrievable. The current Memorandum of Understanding does not contain provisions for routine reporting of camera activity.76
74 Ryan, R.W. “City of College Park, Maryland Worksession Agenda Item.” May 3, 2016. Provided by City of College Park Director of Public Services to assessment team electronically on June 29, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team June – December 2017. See also, “Worksession Minutes.” May 3, 2016. https://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/MayorCouncil/2016CouncilMinutes/050316WS.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017). 75 For a list of some of the incidents that have been captured on cameras and led to an arrest, see Appendix D. 76 Memorandum of Understanding between the UMDPS and the City of College Park for CCTV Camera Monitoring, effective July 1, 2014.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 48
In addition to the security cameras and LPRs purchased by the City, there is a contract with Optotraffic to provide automated speed enforcement cameras in the City. There are currently eight fixed speed camera locations, and one handheld ASE camera used by contract officers. The City is allowed by Maryland law to use speed cameras 24/7/365 within one half mile of the UMD institution of higher education zone. The cost of the contract police program is covered by the net revenue from the speed camera program. The Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) also installed automated speed enforcement cameras in certain school zones outside of the City and one red light camera in College Park.
In addition to cameras, both Prince George’s County and the University of Maryland have programs to push alerts to the public using electronic notifications. While the City of College Park does have a separate program to push alerts—related to the city council, city events, development news, job listings, public works information, and other general news—it relies on the County to push emergency alerts to city residents, as the City does not staff a 24/7 office. The program is described as: “Alert Prince George's (formerly known as Notify Me Prince George's) is Prince George's County's "Public" communications system that sends emergency alerts, notifications, and updates to your registered devices. It is information sharing between County Government and interested participants who wish to receive critical, real-time information. Alert Prince George's operates on an enhanced software platform that expands alert and notification capabilities. As a subscriber, you will be able to receive information regarding traffic conditions, government closures, public safety incidents and severe weather. Users are provided with more ways to receive accurate, timely and secure information before, during and after an emergency or disaster.”77
Likewise, the UMD Alerts System “is a mass, urgent notification system, comprised of a variety of methods by which the University can notify students, faculty and staff of an active, major campus emergency via text messages (SMS) to mobile devices, a feed to the university’s Alerts Beacons, Early Warning Sirens and Email.78 When the UMPD determines there is an active emergency in which the public safety of the campus community may be at risk, an urgent notification through the UMD Alerts System will be initiated. Examples of when UMD Alerts will be activated include but are not limited to: when a person is actively shooting a weapon on campus;
77 “Alert Prince George’s Public Notification System.” Prince George’s County, Maryland. https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/794/Alert-Prince-Georges (accessed November 20, 2017). 78 “About UMD Alerts.” University of Maryland. https://alert.umd.edu/ (accessed November 20, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 49 when a tornado is predicted to strike the campus area; when a major hazardous material spill is impacting a large portion of campus; or, localized incidents (such as a small fire, hazardous material spill in a lab, isolated criminal offense) likely would not require a mass notification. All UMD Students, faculty and staff members are automatically registered to receive email notification to their email address associated with their UMD directory account. To receive UMD Alert SMS (text) messages, faculty, staff and students must register a mobile device number.” City residents may sign up for UMD alerts.
Remaining with the Current Policing Structure
The Police Foundation assessment team was unable to determine whether the cost of the camera systems provides a substantial public value because there has been no development of the specifics of what the cameras are supposed to achieve and what measurements are needed to determine if the desired effect(s) takes place. Likewise, there are no definitive goals and objectives that specify desired impacts of the LPRs. Generally, these systems are designed to prevent crime by acting as a deterrent and help solve crimes that occur that are recorded by the systems. While the anecdotes and little data that is available appears to show some value for the systems, determining whether the results justify the costs is inconclusive without more comprehensive evidence, data, and identified goals and objectives.
Public surveillance technologies – including cameras in various forms, from closed circuit television (CCTV) to license plate recognition (LPR) – have increasingly been used by law enforcement as part of their crime prevention and crime control aims.79 However, despite some analyses indicating that cameras have positive effects on reducing crime, these effects are limited when the technology is not used effectively. A 2011 study by the Urban Institute examining the impact of CCTV cameras in Baltimore, Maryland, Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., concluded that while cameras may help to reduce crime in certain areas when actively monitored, areas with cameras that are not actively and routinely monitored or that have a relatively low concentration of cameras do not display the same crime reduction effects.80 Later studies examining CCTV effectiveness on crime reduction have similarly supported these findings, and additionally add that CCTV effectiveness may differ by crime type
79 Kille, Leighton Walter and Martin Maximino. “The effect of CCTV on public safety: Research roundup.” Justice Quarterly. Last updated February 11, 2014. https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal- justice/surveillance-cameras-and-crime (accessed January 29, 2018); “Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR).” International Association of Chiefs of Police. http://www.theiacp.org/ALPR (accessed January 29, 2018). 80 La Vigne, Nancy G., Samantha S. Lowry, Joshua A. Markman, and Allison M. Dwyer. 2011. Evaluating the Use of Pubic Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/27556/412403-evaluating-the-use-of- public-surveillance-cameras-for-crime-control-and-prevention.pdf (accessed January 30, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 50 and by how it is used in conjunction with other policing practices.81 To ensure they are using the CCTV cameras effectively, agencies should therefore consider the goals and objectives they hope to achieve with the technology, carefully plan the use and placement of the technology, and consider the costs of installation, maintenance, and monitoring.82
Likewise, agencies seeking to use other types of cameras as part of crime prevention measures and crime control should implement their use in a coordinated and planned manner, and with clear goals and objectives. The International Association for Chiefs of Police guidance for law enforcement on Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) systems emphasizes that to use ALPRs effectively, agencies must ensure the technology is used to meet clearly identified agency objectives and is in line with broader agency plans.83 To do this, agencies should appropriately plan, implement, train, deploy, use, and manage the technology and its related information.
Beyond the crime reduction effects that cameras can have when used effectively, cameras may also provide value as an investigative or evidentiary tool. A quality recording could potentially help investigators watch and learn more about an incident, corroborate or refute other evidence, provide context for the situation, and even identify suspects or witnesses.84 However, the availability and usefulness of a recording depend on many situational factors, including quality of the image, placement of the cameras, and whether investigating officers can identify potential sources of footage to request a recording.85 If police do not identify potential sources of footage or are unable to retrieve the footage, potentially available recordings could go unutilized. Training detectives and prosecutors on how best to use the cameras may help with investigations and case presentation.86
81 Piza, Eric L., Joel M. Caplan, and Leslie W. Kennedy. “Analyzing the Influence of Micro-Level Factors on CCTV Camera Effect.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology. (2014) 30: 237-264; Eric L. Piza, Joel M. Caplan, Leslie W. Kennedy, Andrew M. Gilchrist. “The effects of merging proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol: a randomized controlled trial.” Journal of Experimental Criminology. (2015) 11: 43-69. 82 La Vigne, Nancy G., Samantha S. Lowry, Joshua A. Markman, and Allison M. Dwyer. 2011. Evaluating the Use of Pubic Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/27556/412403-evaluating-the-use-of- public-surveillance-cameras-for-crime-control-and-prevention.pdf (accessed January 30, 2018). 83 Roberts, David J. and Meghann Casanova. 2012. Automated License Plate Recognition Systems: Policy and Operational Guidance for Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/IACP_ALPR_Policy_Operational_Guidance.pdf (accessed January 29, 2018). 84 Ashby, Matthew P. J. “The Value of CCTV Surveillance Cameras as an Investigative Tool: An Empirical Analysis.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. (2017) 23: 441-459. 85 Ashby, Matthew P. J. “The Value of CCTV Surveillance Cameras as an Investigative Tool: An Empirical Analysis.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. (2017) 23: 441-459. 86 La Vigne, Nancy G., Samantha S. Lowry, Joshua A. Markman, and Allison M. Dwyer. 2011. Evaluating the Use of Pubic Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 51 Given the current uses and capacities of the cameras in College Park, the goals of and objectives of their deployment should prioritize deterrence. The results of a systematic review and meta- analysis of CCTVs in public places demonstrated a overall decrease of approximately 16% in crime, a 7% decrease in crime in city and town centers and public housing communities, and a more than 50% reduction in crime in public parking lots.87 Additionally, the City should have as a goal to increase the number of cases in which video plays a role in generating leads and arrests. As mentioned above, the City requests approximately 450 videos from UMPD per year, with usable video becoming available about half of the time, leading to an average of approximately 27 arrests per year. Determining where the crime hotspots are, re-installing cameras in those areas, and increasing the number of usable videos that lead to identifying and arresting suspects is an attainable goal for College Park. Longer term, as innovation continues to expand available options and reduce prices, the City should either partner with other local agencies or the Prince George’s County Office of Information Technology to establish a real- time crime center where cameras can be monitored and viewers can dispatch law enforcement to crimes as they are occuring.
Likewise, full use of the County and UMD alert programs will enhance emergency communications notifications in College Park. Although some of the alerts, especially from the County notification system, will not directly apply to College Park community members, being aware of the crime trends and crime prevention efforts in other parts of Prince George’s County can help inform proactive decisions and programs to be implemented by City officials and community members. For example, alerts related to thefts from vehicles around the holidays can lead City officials, merchants, and community members to collaborate on neighborhood watch patrols around popular shopping centers or installation of additional lights in parking lots. Additionally, awareness gained through increased numbers of community members receiving these alerts can lead to better prioritization of issues with PGPD District 1 and contract officers. Therefore, the City should seek to widely publicize these options so that City residents are fully aware of their usefulness. The City should display this information more prominently on its website, leverage its Facebook and Twitter accounts to push notifications about public safety and crimes, and consider other social media platforms and applications— including Nextdoor—to increase awareness. Increases in the number of subscribers within College Park, the provision of alerts to community members, and data which should include increased engagement in Neighborhood Watch groups and other crime prevention efforts,
Policing Services. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/27556/412403-evaluating-the-use-of- public-surveillance-cameras-for-crime-control-and-prevention.pdf (accessed January 30, 2018). 87 Welsh, Brandon C. and David P. Farrington. “Public Area CCTV and Crime Prevention: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” 2009. Justice Quarterly, 26:4, 716-745.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 52 satisfaction with communication by City officials on surveys, and perceptions of overall safety and security on community surveys should be counted as successes of such endeavors.
Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD
Should College Park officials choose to modify the city’s current relationship with the county, city officials should strongly consider discussing options related to monitoring the fixed security cameras and LPRs that are deployed and discussing the use of the Prince George’s County Public Safety Communications call center. The City of College Park has moved forward to install on-site data recording and forensic look-back data retrieval software rather than fund additional live monitoring of security cameras. However, Prince George’s County only monitors traffic cameras, through the Traffic Response and Informatiion Partnership (TRIP) Center at the Department of Public Works and Transportation, in order to effectively manage the operations of the County’s transportation system.88 Additionally, the technology deployed by the PGPD is only used for speed and red light enforcement, and is monitored and maintained by either County or vendor personnel. Since an individual at Prince George’s County Public Safety Comunications indicated to the Police Foundation assessment team that they currently do not have the capacity to monitor the PGPD cameras, working with the City of College Park to have their cameras feed into the County system and be monitored by their personnel would come at a considerable cost to the City of College Park and be unfeasible.89 The costs would be determined based on the number of cameras being fed in, any software patches and/or applications required to facilitate the streaming, and the costs of additional bandwidth needed; additional staff needed to monitor and dispatch officers to ongoing incidents; and, storage space for evidentiary videos.
Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County
Beginning in 2011, the City of College Park and the University of Maryland, Department of Public Safety (UMDPS) entered into a MOU regarding the monitoring services of CCTVs, specifically PTZ systems, for three of the seven current security projects. Under the MOU, the main objective of UMDPS security operations staff is to, “monitor the areas within camera range by conducting prescribed camera rounds and patrols 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with the exception of the LPR cameras; notify University Police of any unusual or illegal circumstances; record all activities captured by the cameras on a 24 hour a day, 7 days per
88 “Traffic Response & Information Partnership (TRIP).” Public Works & Transportation. Prince George’s County, Maryland. https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/1145/Traffic-Response-Information-Partnership (accessed February 27, 2018. 89 Police Foundation assessment team interview with Wayne McBride, Prince George's County Public Safety Communications. February 26, 2018.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 53 week basis; and as appropriate, provide video evidence to officers to assist with cases.”90 This includes a total of 20 PTZ cameras and seven LPRs. The annual unit price fee per camera is $6,503 for FY2017, and the total monitoring fee for the same year was $136,563.00. UMPD provides record-only services for LPRs for no charge, while service and maintenance is provided by Hitachi Data Systems Corporation.91
Additionally, UMPD tallies specific video review requests which require UMPD staff to investigate an incident that previously occurred and records if at least one City camera was used during a review and a second report tallies episodes when UMPD Security Operations Center (SOC) employees monitor City cameras during active incidents such as traffic stops, theft reports, breaking and entering, fights, etc. The current MOU does not contain provisions for routine reporting of camera activity,92 however, a request could be made to modify the contract to include routine reporting. This would be outside the contract for police service with the county, but would likely involve less cost than the costs identified in the enhancement of the relationship with PGPD.
Creation of a College Park Police Department
As mentioned above, the Police Foundation assessment team was unable to determine if these devices provide substantial public value, in large part because the only server with the capability to record what is captured from the cameras is located in City Hall and is not actively monitored.93 Establishing a College Park Police Department (CPPD) that has the additional capacity to monitor the cameras installed throughout College Park would involve addressing all of the issues that currently exist with the camera programs now and also involve additional costs associated with purchasing the additional servers and bandwidth needed to stream the
90 City of College Park, Maryland. “College Park Security Cameras Status Report.” July 12, 2016. Provided by City of College Park Director of Public Services to assessment team electronically on June 29, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team June – December 2017. See also, Ryan, R.W. “City of College Park, Maryland Worksession Agenda Item.” May 3, 2016. Provided by City of College Park Director of Public Services to assessment team electronically on June 29, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team June – December 2017. See also, “Worksession Minutes.” May 3, 2016. https://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/MayorCouncil/2016CouncilMinutes/050316WS.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017). 91 University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Public Safety and the City of College Park. “CCTV Camera Monitoring Memorandum of Understanding.” May 26, 2015. Provided by City of College Park Director of Public Services to assessment team electronically on June 29, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team June – December 2017. 92 Memorandum of Understanding between the UMDPS and the City of College Park for CCTV Camera Monitoring, effective July 1, 2014. 93 Ryan, R.W. “City of College Park, Maryland Worksession Agenda Item.” May 3, 2016. Provided by City of College Park Director of Public Services to assessment team electronically on June 29, 2017. Reviewed by assessment team June – December 2017. See also, “Worksession Minutes.” May 3, 2016. https://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/MayorCouncil/2016CouncilMinutes/050316WS.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 54 videos to a facility that could be monitored by City staff and recorded when needed; additional staff needed to monitor and dispatch officers to ongoing incidents; and, storage space for evidentiary videos. Two of the civilian employees—evidence technician and the crime scene processor—along with any of the officers on light duty could be responsible for monitoring this footage, when available, and would be overseen by one of the detectives who would also be able to access the footage when needed for investigations.
Conclusion
To receive the maximum benefit from the CCTVs and PTZ cameras, as well as LPRs, the most effective option for the City of College Park would be to continue to leverage the combination of the UMPD, and consider increasing their ability to access and monitor the technology currently deployed. The UMPD SOC employees can already monitor City cameras during active incidents and provide the City of College Park record-only services for other cameras. Since the Prince George’s County OIT does not currently have the hardware or software structure in place to receive live streams from, or monitor, the cameras deployed in College Park that have been purchased by the City, working with the County would involve more resources and cost—if it was even feasible—than increasing the access that UMPD already has. Likewise, increasing the access that UMPD already has would be significantly more cost-beneficial than increasing the staffing of the CPPD to include a real-time crime center.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 55 Topic 6: Visibility and Police-Community Relations
When law enforcement cultivates strong, collaborative relationships with the communities they serve, they can better address community needs and achieve greater community engagement and cooperation.94 In this way, enhanced police-community relations can help to identify issues and lower criminal activity over time.95 Many factors affect police-community relations; one critical means by which police enhance relations is through their presence and visibility. Visibility of community-oriented policing practices has been positively associated with police- community relations.96 When police are visible in their community, they can demonstrate their willingness to interact with community members and can create a sense of approachability, familiarity, and trust with them.97 Through their visibility, police can make residents feel more safe and/or prioritized compared to areas with lower police visibility—a sentiment emphasized by some College Park community members.
As described in Appendix E: Methodology, the Police Foundation assessment team collected community perspectives using various methods—including semi-structured interviews and focus groups, phone interviews and email/online surveys, town hall meetings, and attending pre-planned Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) and community meetings—to assess community and merchant perspectives on the current level of policing and public safety services in College Park. The assessment team spoke to approximately 150 City government officials, law enforcement representatives, community members and merchants and many expressed a variety of opinions regarding current police presence and relations, and regarding the notion of a new police department. These opinions ranged from preferring no change in policing in the area to preferring the creation of a new College Park Police Department. The assessment team was unable to identify consensus from community members and merchants regarding whether they believe College Park should have its own police department. Between all of these opportunities to engage with community members and merchants, 52 individuals
94 President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 95 Constance Rice and Susan K. Lee. Relationship-Based Policing: Achieving Safety in Watts. February 2015. Los Angeles: The Advancement Project. http://advancementprojectca.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/09/imce/President%27s%20Task%20Force%20CSP%20Policy%20Brief%20FINAL%2002-27- 15.pdf (accessed January 12, 2018); Building Communities of Trust. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/BCOTGuidanceForCommunityLeaders.pdf (accessed January 12, 2018). 96 Wesley G. Skogan and Susan M. Hartnett. Community Policing, Chicago Style. 1997. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 97 Brett Cowell and Anne Kringen. Engaging Communities One Step At A Time: Policing’s Tradition of Foot Patrol as an Innovating Community Engagement Survey. 2016. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PF_Engaging-Comminities-One-Step-at-a- Time_Final.pdf (accessed January 12, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 56 answered the structured questions on the assessment team survey on policing and public services in College Park. While this number of responses is certainly not representative of the city’s demographics, several themes did emerge: The assessment team was unable to identify consensus from community members and merchants regarding whether they believe College Park should have its own police department. 25% indicated that the current system of policing is adequate, 26.9% did not, and the remaining 48.1% were either unsure or did not directly answer the question. o Of the 14 respondents who felt the current system is inadequate, 50% recommended that the University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD) jurisdiction be expanded throughout College Park. Six (43.9%) were in favor of a College Park Police Department (CPPD), and the remaining individual did not provide a suggestion. o At least one respondent from north (three), east (one), and west (one) College Park, and College Park Woods (one) believed that their neighborhoods were under-policed. While the assessment team did not specifically ask about it, 18 (34.6%) of the respondents mentioned the costs associated with a standalone CPPD. o Of these respondents, 38.9% were in favor of, or amenable, to a CPPD as long as it did not cause their taxes to increase and the City did not divert money from other services. The remaining 61.1% felt that any potential benefits would not justify the additional costs. Police visibility was the most-common concern, with 14 individuals (26.9%), indicating that it could be improved. Some of these respondents, however, either believed the current system of policing is adequate or were unsure.
Additional highlights and other themes from the feedback collected by the assessment team, along with verbatim quotes from community members and merchants, are included throughout this chapter. In addition to the direct feedback, the assessment team reviewed the College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results, a separate survey administered by the City of College Park, regarding public safety and highlights are also included in this chapter.98
98 National Research Center Inc. College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results. April 2017. Boulder, CO: National Research Center Inc. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Admin/CityManager/Communications/College%20Park%20Co mmunity%20Survey%20Report%20FINAL%20web.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 57 College Park Initiated Community Survey
According to the College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results, residents provided a series of responses to various aspects of life in the area. Key findings from the survey indicate that 70% of people find the overall quality of life in College Park as good or excellent, with only 30% indicating it as fair or poor. Respondents were then asked of one way the City could improve the quality of life in the area, and the three high ranked responses included: increased shopping, dining, and entertainment options (19%); improved roads, transportation and traffic, (16%); and, improving public safety (11%).
When gathering perceptions about community problems, residents did express that most of their issues were not significant, but rather enhancements that the city could make to further improve. In fact, 59% of College Park residents that responded to the survey, rated their overall feelings of safety in the city as good or excellent, while 41% responded that it was fair or poor. While most respondents felt somewhat safe to very safe in all the College Park areas, when more specific locations were added to the question the results varied: for example, 29% felt somewhat unsafe to very unsafe on trails and paths.
Overall, the College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results findings provide a mixed view of public safety in College Park. Police services received a 71% good or excellent rating and roughly half of residents rated emergency preparedness, code enforcement, and crime prevention positively. For comparison sake, findings from the same survey showed 95% of all residents rated Ambulance/EMS services as good or excellent, and similarly 94% rated Fire services as equally as high.
Source: National Research Center Inc. College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results. April 2017. Boulder, CO: National Research Center Inc. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Admin/CityManager/Communications/College%20Park%20 Community%20Survey%20Report%20FINAL%20web.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017).
Remaining with the Current Policing Structure
In interviews with the assessment team, some residents interviewed expressed contentment with the current state of policing in College Park and believe that the current system is sufficient. These residents relayed their perceptions that serious crime is low, officers are generally responsive, and the current system provides adequate protection for the community. These individuals also pointed to the fact that few could readily distinguish between city contract officers, PGPD District 1 officers assigned to the area, and the University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD) officers now, so changes are unnecessary.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 58 Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD
Through the assessment team’s community outreach, some residents expressed dissatisfaction with current police-community relations and visibility. Describing their neighborhoods as “under-policed,” some College Park residents explained that police are not visible enough throughout all the city’s neighborhoods, but rather, are concentrated downtown and in parts of the city with heavy student populations. In their opinion, police in College Park spend most of their time addressing problems of noise, drunken students, and traffic along Baltimore Avenue in the middle of the city, and neglect other neighborhoods of the city.
In 2013, the University of Maryland (UMD) expanded the jurisdiction of the Code of Student Conduct to include conduct, “not on University premises if the conduct would otherwise constitute a violation of this Code had it occurred on University premises.”99 The expansion also allows for police officers, community members, and other students to make referrals for off- campus behavior—including underage alcohol consumption/possession, disorderly or disruptive behavior, providing false identification, physical harm or causing apprehension of physical harm, and illegal drug consumption or possession—to the UMD Office of Student Conduct (OSC). Each year since the expansion was enacted, hundreds of off-campus referrals have been made to the OSC, including a dramatic increase from 2016 (198 off-campus referrals) to 2017 (353 off-campus referrals).100 Though some residents acknowledged the positive intent of the expansion to off-campus behavior, they also questioned the actual effectiveness of the new process.101 The UMPD and PGPD should work together with community members to discuss the increased referrals being made by these departments to the OSC and additional enhancements that can be made to increase the effectiveness of the off-campus referral process in addressing the nuisance issues throughout the City of College Park.
The challenges surrounding the success of local law enforcement addressing off-campus behavior are exacerbated by residents who expressed concern about general police visibility in the City. This perception of less police presence may be attributed to officers who patrol (contract officers) in unmarked cars. As mentioned in Topic 1, PGPD supervisors, detectives, and some special unit personnel – all of who are part of the group of contract officers – drive their county-issued unmarked vehicles while on patrol as city contract officers. However,
99 “University of Maryland Code of Student Conduct.” September 2, 2015. https://president.umd.edu/sites/president.umd.edu/files/documents/policies/V-100B.pdf (accessed December 1, 2017). 100 University of Maryland, Division of Student Affairs, Office of Student Conduct. “2016-2017 Statistical Data Off- Campus Jurisdiction End-of-Year Report for the College Park City-University Partnership’s Public Safety.” 2018. Provided via email by the College Park Director of Public Services to the Police Foundation assessment team. February 2, 2018. 101 Police Foundation assessment team town hall with College Park residents. July 25, 2017,
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 59 community members that feel the police are not integrated into their community through assignments to the same beats and contacts with residents of the neighborhoods they patrol are less likely to engage with them.
To allay these concerns, if the City of College Park modifies its relationship with Prince George’s County, consideration should be given to increasing the number of officers in College Park so that more equal distribution of available patrol officers can be made throughout the City. Although the City currently distributes its officers according to need—allocating higher numbers of personnel to the downtown bar and restaurant area that has a higher number of calls-for-service—the City should also consider assigning contract officers to attend civic association meetings on a regular (at least monthly) basis to improve the perception that they are not visible enough in the community.
Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County
Many of the complaints that the Police Foundation assessment team heard from College Park residents and merchants were related to UMD students. For example, a town hall attendee told the assessment team:
“The concern is underage drinking. We need a task force to specifically handle campus crime.” Other town hall attendees suggested, “UMPD needs to pay better attention to crime trends in specific residence locations,” and that, “UMPD should only answer calls related to student disturbances, parties and campus crime.”
Some of these residents also suggested that more information about how an incident or a complaint is dealt with by the University once a referral is made could increase their understanding of and trust in the system. Since all UMPD officers are certified Maryland law enforcement officers, College Park officials should strongly consider lobbying PGPD command staff to expand the concurrent jurisdiction agreement between them and the UMPD to include all of College Park, which would be an undertaking that the University of Maryland as a whole would have to consider, and thus take an additional amount of time and resources.
As one community member interviewed by the Police Foundation assessment team indicated:
“UMD has a well-trained, well-developed, and well-equipped police department. We should just let them police the whole city.”102
102 Police Foundation assessment team phone interview with College Park community member. June 27, 2017.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 60 While this would undoubtedly cause some of the same staffing challenges identified in Topic 1, with approximately 82 sworn officers, the UMPD is larger than any of the local agencies in Prince George’s County, and is already located in College Park.103
Creation of a College Park Police Department
The assessment team heard specific responses during community outreach that support the notion that a new College Park Police Department (CPPD) would be well received, which was also supported by the fact that a 2017 survey indicated that, while the majority of community members feel safe in College Park, a number (40%) of residents rated their overall feeling of safety in the city as fair or poor.104 Some of the community members were aware that many of the nearby cities in Prince George’s County operate their own police departments. These departments vary in size from Laurel with 70 officers, Bowie with 54, and Greenbelt with 59, to Colmar Manor and Berwyn Heights with three officers each.105 Some of the individuals in favor of a College Park Police Department also acknowledged that property and local sales taxes would most likely be raised to fund the department, but noted that—to the best of their individual knowledge—similar cities in the county were able to do so at seemingly affordable costs that their communities were willing to accept. While the Police Foundation assessment team did not calculate comparable tax rates, as mentioned in Topic 1, by having its own full- service CPPD, the City of College Park would be eligible for a County real estate tax differential of approximately 11.58 cents. The City could then levy those 11.58 cents as a City property tax, to generate an additional $2,982,000 of real estate property tax revenue, which could be used to offset the cost of the police department.106 Therefore, residents and merchants would pay a comparable tax rate, but the money would go to the City to fund the CPPD instead of to the County. Additionally, a slight increase in taxes on top of the 11.58 cents would further contribute to funding the costs associated with the CPPD. The City could also use the approximately $12,500 it would save by eliminating the nighttime code enforcement officer shift to offset the costs of the CPPD.
Community members seeking change in the existing policing organization—whether through a modified or new policing contract, or through the creation of a standalone College Park Police
103 Email from University of Maryland Police Department Chief of Staff to Police Foundation assessment team member. February 26, 2018. 104 National Research Center Inc. College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results. April 2017. Boulder, CO: National Research Center Inc. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Admin/CityManager/Communications/College%20Park%20Co mmunity%20Survey%20Report%20FINAL%20web.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017). 105 See Appendix A for a full list of the sworn, civilian, and total employee breakdowns of the police departments in Prince George’s County. 106 Police Foundation assessment team interview with the College Park Director of Finance.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 61 Department—identified a perceived lack of police visibility and concentration of police downtown and resources as main drivers of their dissatisfaction. While some of the residents that expressed this viewpoint acknowledged that there are disorder problems concentrated in areas adjacent to the University of Maryland campus and in the downtown bars and their immediate vicinity, they also indicated that other areas of College Park needed police as well, if nothing more than as a visible deterrent.
Some community members in the city expressed the desire for officers to spend more time engaging with, and getting to know community members—especially the contract officers who are not otherwise responding to emergency calls. Few residents indicated that they were familiar with the contract officers, although some were familiar with the PGPD District 1 community-oriented policing officers that work in College Park. Some residents voiced that they believe officers are disconnected from the communities they serve. Specifically, some of these residents told the assessment team: “Officers don’t interact with the community,” “Police should engage in more foot patrol and education to combat real community issues,” and, “The problem is that officers no longer interact with the people, and therefore do not get exposure to neighborhoods or the people who live there.”
Conclusion
While the City could potentially reduce the current concerns of some community members and merchants by increasing the number of officers on patrol, more equally allocating personnel citywide, or assigning contract officers to attend civic association meetings on a regular (at least monthly) basis, establishing a CPPD would and most-positively contribute to long-term police- community relations in College Park. The City can recruit and select officers with characteristics that represent the community culture and values. Having a standalone CPPD would allow local city leadership to create an allocation system that fosters beat “ownership:” through the establishment of protocols for community input. CPPD leadership could create a culture that prizes community engagement that would serve to establish transparency and accountability as key organizational values.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 62 Recommendations and Explanations
The Police Foundation assessment team was contracted by the City of College Park to assess options for policing services: those investigated include remaining with the current police structure, modifying the existing relationship with the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD), negotiating a new contract for a patrol-only service with PGPD or a new contract with another local law enforcement agency in Prince George’s County, and creating a new police department in College Park. The overall explanations of each option are summarized below.
Remaining with the Current Policing Structure
Based on the information gathered by the Police Foundation assessment team, remaining with the current policing structure in College Park requires little change. As highlighted in Topic 5, based on the results of a community survey conducted in 2017, police services received a 71% good or excellent rating and roughly half of residents rated emergency preparedness, code enforcement, and crime prevention positively.107 This indicates that the overwhelming majority of community members believe that there is no strong need to change current practice and suggests that no additional effort on the part of College Park officials to modify the relationship with the PGPD, find another local agency to negotiate with, or establish a standalone police department for the city is necessary. Some possible methods to increase visibility and community contact should be considered if the City decides to stay with this model. During FY 2017, the City of College Park funded the contract police program at $1,305,319 and included a total of $4,270,615 in the proposed FY 2017 budget for public services.108
Modifying the Existing Relationship with PGPD
Based on the information gathered by the Police Foundation assessment team, modifying the current relationship with the PGPD to make several enhancements may be a beneficial financial decision, but would take considerable time and effort. While the City could choose to improve the current model by selecting some of the less costly options discussed throughout the report—primarily, better marking of vehicles to enhance visibility and improving the chain-of- command and oversight processes—larger modifications would take considerable effort and
107 National Research Center Inc. College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results. April 2017. Boulder, CO: National Research Center Inc. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Admin/CityManager/Communications/College%20Park%20Co mmunity%20Survey%20Report%20FINAL%20web.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017). 108 “City of College Park, Maryland: City Manager’s Proposed Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2017.” http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Finance/Budget/FY2017_Proposed_Budget.pdf (accessed January 18, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 63 potentially involve significant financial obligations on the part of the City of College Park. This option would also require Prince George’s County and PGPD to undertake significant efforts to increase staffing to its authorized strength—PGPD is currently understaffed by approximately 100 sworn positions,109 and the County aspires to increase the authorized strength of the PGPD to more than 2,200—before working with College Park to address their concerns in a negotiation that could also take years to come to fruition. While the County has indicated that public safety is a priority and that it is open to any number of discussions to achieve that goal, as detailed in the individual topics, resources and time would be needed to achieve this endeavor and political will may present additional challenges that make it an untenable option.
Contracting with Another Local Agency in Prince George’s County
Based on the information gathered by the Police Foundation assessment team, negotiating a contract with another local agency in Prince George’s County for overall policing services is unfeasible.
The largest law enforcement agency in Prince George’s County outside of the PGPD is the University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD), which currently has 82 sworn officers.110 Agencies that size or smaller cannot readily deploy a significant portion of their sworn officers to another jurisdiction and do not have the resources necessary to make this an option worth considering for College Park. Additionally, any contract with another local agency would negate the tax differential of almost $3 million that the City of College Park would be eligible for by creating its own police department. The City would also have to determine how it would receive specialized services including crime scene investigations, SWAT, hostage negotiation, and Aviation Unit response.
While there are individual options that make sense for College Park to replicate individual services from local police departments in Prince George’s County—like data collection and analysis and technology and camera monitoring—there are far too many hurdles for any of those agencies to make a more comprehensive contract that mirrors or goes beyond that of the type College Park currently has with PGPD remotely possible.
109 Office of Audits and Investigations. “Police Department Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Review.” The Prince George’s County Government. May 10, 2017. https://pgccouncil.us/DocumentCenter/View/2470 (accessed February 21, 2018). 110 Email from University of Maryland Police Department Chief of Staff to Police Foundation assessment team member. February 26, 2018.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 64 Creation of a College Park Police Department
Based on the information gathered by the Police Foundation assessment team, creating a standalone College Park Police Department (CPPD) would be a beneficial overall long-term option for the City of College Park. The creation of the CPPD would easily allow the city to fully respond to the challenges of the current construct and key issues identified in each topic areas covered in this report. The creation of a CPPD would allow for more flexible and more responsive staffing allocation decisions to be made and would address the need for more direct oversight by College Park elected and appointed officials. Having a standalone police department collect, analyze, and provide ready access to crime and law enforcement activity data would eliminate many of the steps currently required to obtain such information. The creation of CPPD would allow the city to own and operate its equipment and technology resources. Lastly, to address the community concerns about visibility and community police relations, a standalone police department would allow the College Park city leadership to develop their own public safety and community plan in College Park. While there would be a significant financial obligation (see Appendix A for more information), it would be the most opportune long-term answer for the provision of policing services in the City of College Park.
Conclusion
The comprehensive review conducted by the Police Foundation assessment team consisted of examining the current contracts and memoranda of understanding for policing services in College Park; analyzing available crime data, calls-for-service records, and other resources provided by the City and the law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in College Park; and, gathering input from law enforcement representatives, College Park and Prince George’s County government officials, business and neighborhood leaders, and community members through surveys, interviews, focus groups, and town halls. The assessment team used the information to evaluate four options: remaining with the current policing structure; modifying the City’s existing relationship for officers and additional services with the PGPD; entering into a new contract with another local police department within Prince George’s County; or, establishing a standalone College Park Police Department (CPPD).
The assessment team concluded that while there are certainly benefits to each of the options presented in this report, the most-opportune decision for the City of College Park would be to
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 65 consider two options, focused on short and long terms solutions for the delivery of high-quality police services to those who are part of the College Park community.
College Park should consider remaining under the current policing structure in the short-term, with the long-term goal of establishing a standalone College Park police department in the future. Developing a CPPD would provide the strongest solutions to many of the topics discussed in the report. While there are options that may be more cost-effective for the City of College Park, larger changes to staffing and police-community relations would require significant time and require the City to rely on another entity or department. These unquantifiable benefits—such as being able to have more-direct oversight, adjust staffing and coverage as needed, and position the City for the future—are important to consider. Additionally, having a police department staffed by employees working for the city and wholly committed to College Park would directly benefit community members and merchants and provide them a dedicated set of officers with whom to build relationships and to partner create public safety together.
It is important to understand that creating a police agency takes time and planning. However, by having this as a long-term goal, the City can spread out the start-up costs across multiple budget cycles, and apply for State and federal law enforcement grants to cover some costs.
To achieve this goal, the assessment team recommends that College Park create a committee of City officials and business and community leaders to develop a long-term plan. The plan should include: key tasks and dates; relevant grants and other financial incentives; opportunities to proactively engage merchants and community members; and, a process to regularly (at least annually) survey the community on perceptions of public safety and policing priorities for the new department to address.
City of College Park officials are to be commended for their commitment to exploring options to enhance public safety services citywide. The current police structure has kept the level of serious crime in College Park relatively low. In fact, a 2017 survey of College Park community members indicated that more than 70 percent view police services as good or excellent,111 but College Park officials have proactively sought external researchers to examine how the City can improve in this regard every 10 years. Establishing a CPPD would positively impact overall perceptions of public safety in College Park.
111 National Research Center Inc. College Park 2017 Community Survey Report of Results. April 2017. Boulder, CO: National Research Center Inc. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/document_center/Admin/CityManager/Communications/College%20Park%20Co mmunity%20Survey%20Report%20FINAL%20web.pdf (accessed November 20, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 66 Appendix A: Costs for a College Park Police Department
Creating a police department is an expensive and arduous task. The City needs to determine the style of policing that will fit the community and recruit and hire a police chief that subscribes to that vision. Likewise, officers that match the characteristics the community wants them to have need to be recruited. Even if the department hires already-certified officers with appropriate experience, they must be able to offer a competitive salary and benefits package. Otherwise, the department will also have to account for training and certification, which will also add time and costs to the process. The City will also need to determine whether current operations including human resources, information technology and upper management can handle the increased workload or whether they need to be expanded.
In addition, the City will need to select a site for a new police headquarters. This may involve retro-fitting an existing site or acquiring land and constructing a purpose designed new building. Additionally, a fleet of police vehicle will have to be acquired and will need to be equipped with up-to-date technology to provide needed functionality. Fueling and maintenance operations will also need to be determined and funded. Officers’ uniforms and equipment will need to be purchased and contracts for communication and dispatch and information technology functions will need to be established as well.
The following charts detail the estimated costs that are typical of those incurred for a start-up police department. The costs are based on an equivalent level of patrol staffing and capacities in College Park and do not account for specialized units—such as a special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team, domestic violence, homicide, sexual assault, crime scene investigation, or hostage negotiation—which would cost considerably more. The first one details the expenses for uniforms and equipment for each sworn officer (approximately $7,071 per officer). The second details the initial expenses for implementing a College Park Police Department (approximately $9,658,087). The third provides projected annual budget costs (approximately $5,581,462).
Therefore, the combined cost of the initial expenses and the projected first-year budget for a College Park Police Department is approximately $15,239,549.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 67 Initial Uniform and Equipment Costs for a College Park Police Department112
Number Needed Item Cost Total Cost Trousers 4 $55 $220 Long sleeve shirt 3 $44 $132 Short sleeve shirt 3 $44 $132 Clip-on tie 2 $6 $12 Badge 2 $55 $110 Name tag 3 $11 $33 Duty Jacket, Gore- Tex 1 $204 $204 Reversible raincoat 1 $55 $55 Duty Hat 1 $39 $39 Hat badge 1 $28 $28 Duty Helmet 1 $116 $116 Duty Belt 1 $55 $55 Holster 1 $110 $110 Magazine pouch 1 $28 $28 Handcuff case 2 $28 $56 Pepper spray & holder 1 $39 $39 Baton & holder 1 $77 $77 Flashlight holder 1 $6 $6 Radio pouch 1 $17 $17 Flashlight 1 $105 $105 Whistle & chain 1 $6 $6 Handgun & 2 extra magazines 1 $880 $880 Hinged handcuffs 2 $39 $78 Portable radio 1 $2,800 $2,800 Body armor 1 $523 $523 Ticket book holder 1 $22 $22 Total $5,883
In addition to these uniform and equipment costs, outfitting each sworn member of the department with a body-worn camera and conducted electrical weapon would cost $99 per month, or $1,188 per year.113 Therefore, the total initial uniform and equipment cost per officer would be approximately $7,071.
112 The item cost of the handgun and two extra magazines are approximate costs obtained from Lockhart Tactical (www.lockharttactical.com). The rest of the item costs in this chart are approximate costs obtained from two law enforcement uniform and equipment sales websites: Quartermaster (www.qmuniforms.com) and TacticalGear (www.tacticalgear.com). The item costs are accurate as of October 16, 2017. 113 “Plans & Pricing.” TASER International, Inc. 2017. https://prismic-io.s3.amazonaws.com/axon%2F2920713e- d281-44bc-9e9a-40e9547b5e24_product+card+-+axon+plans.pdf (accessed January 16, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 68 Initial Start-Up Expenses for Implementing a College Park Police Department114 Patrol Cars Cost Units New Cruiser $27,500 29 $797,500 New SUV $30,000 4 $120,000
Sub-total for Patrol Cars $917,500
Patrol Car Equipment Equipment for each marked car $35,000 29 $1,015,000
Uniforms and Equipment Each officer $7,071 33 $233,343
Additional Equipment $35,000
Space $413.96 Police 350 square feet per (cost per Headquarters employee 36 12,600 square foot) $5,215,896 Holding Cell 3 $30,000 $90,000
Sub-total for Patrol Cars and Equipment, Uniforms, and Space $7,506,739
Contingency Fund @ 20% (of $7,506,739) $1,501,348 Recruitment, selection and background investigations $150,000 Transition Costs $500,000
Total $9,658,087
114 Assessment team interview with Prince George’s County Fleet Manager Division Chief. February 5, 2018.The space cost of $413.96 per square foot was based on the average cost-per-square-foot of recent costs from the Second, Third, and Sixth districts of the Montgomery County Police Department and the estimated square footage and cost of the Seventh district of the Prince George’s County Police Department. The transition costs reflect the need to overlap current police operations with the establishment of the new police department.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 69 Projected Annual Budget for a College Park Police Department115
Salaries and Benefits
Salaries Sworn Number Rate Chief 1 $135,800 $135,800 Lieutenant 1 $100,600 $100,600 Sergeant 5 $83,200 $416,000 Detective 2 $77,600 $155,200 Patrol Officer 24 $64,500 $1,548,000
Total Salaries Sworn $2,355,600 Fringes Sworn 70% $1,648,920
Sub-total Sworn $4,004,520
Salaries Civilian Administrative Assistant 1 $54,500 $54,500 Clerk 2 $38,000 $76,000
Total Salaries Civilian $130,500 Fringes Civilian 32% $41,760 Sub-total Civilian $172,260
Total Salaries and Wages $4,176,780
Overtime @ 20% (of Total Salaries Sworn and Civilian without Fringes) 20% $497,220
115 Salaries and benefits were derived from midpoints for police positions based on a survey of the following agencies: Manassas, Virginia, Police Department; Montgomery County, Maryland, Government; Newark, Delaware, Police Department; Prince George’s County, Maryland, Government; Prince George’s County, Maryland, Schools; Rockville and Takoma Park, Maryland, Police Departments; and, the University of Maryland – College Park Police Department. Other costs were based on extrapolation from the Greenbelt and Bowie, Maryland, Police Departments, which included worker’s compensation in the sworn fringe benefit figure. The costs of the Communications/Dispatch contract assume a contract with the Prince George’s County Emergency Communication Center and includes some initial costs for reprogramming. The Information Technology contract cost is extrapolated from the Greenbelt and Bowie, Maryland, Police Departments. The budget categories reflect, in part, previous similar research conducted for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania (all links accessed on January 17, 2018).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 70 Standby / Callback Pay @ 0.5% (of Total Salaries Sworn without Fringes) 0.50% $11,778 Shift Differential Pay @ 1.5% (of Total Salaries Sworn without Fringes) 1.50% $35,334
Personnel Costs - Sub-total $4,721,112
Maintenance and Operations Materials and Supplies $5,000 Maintenance Contracts $10,000 Building Repairs and Maintenance $7,500
Printing, Advertising, Website $10,000 Dues / Subscriptions / Periodicals $1,000 Office Supplies & Expenses $5,000
Automotive Repairs and Maintenance $8,000 Gas and Oil @ $1,200 Vehicle 33 $39,600 Vehicle Towing Services $5,000
Telephone / Cellular $36,000 Utilities $28,000
Books / Manuals $1,500 Conferences and Training $7,500 Travel and Meetings $6,000
Uniform Cleaning / Repairs / Replacement @$250 $8,250
Professional Services116 $25,000 Insurance $62,000
116 The Maryland Code: PUBLIC SAFETY, TITLE 3 - LAW ENFORCEMENT, Subtitle 1 - Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights specifies certain due process requirements regarding police officer discipline. A portion of the Professional Services funds can be utilized for resources above and beyond those provided by the City Attorney.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 71
M&O Sub-total $265,350 Capital Outlay Equipment -New $20,000 -Replacement $5,000 Vehicle Replacement Cruiser at $27,500 4 $110,000 SUV at $30,000 1 $30,000
Capital Sub-total $165,000
Contracted Service Communications/Dispatch $350,000 Information Technology $80,000 Contracts Sub-total $430,000
Personnel Costs $4,721,112 M & O Costs $265,350 Capital Costs $165,000 Contracts Costs $430,000
Total First Year Cost $5,581,462
Creating a new department is a substantial commitment of resources. It is a multiyear process that will require dedication and commitment of all of those involved.
The projected annual budget of the CPPD only accounts for direct costs. It is likely that the City will incur additional costs as the result of other elements of City government providing oversight, support, and maintenance for the police department. The projected annual budget estimate will also likely increase as salaries and associated benefits—including cost-of-living, healthcare, and retirement—are adjusted. For more information about costs, see Topic 1: Costs.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 72 Appendix B: Workload Analysis
The workload of law enforcement officers assigned to patrol is composed of time responding to calls for service from the public and engaging in self-initiated activity where officers take proactive action, and performing a variety of administrative tasks.
To accurately assess the current level of policing services in College Park, the Police Foundation assessment team conducted a workload analysis of PGPD District 1 and contract/part-time officer activities from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.117 One important step in assessing patrol workload is to determine the average calls-for-service (CFS) and self-initiated workload. Since the workload analysis was based only on the services provided by the two PGPD District 1 officers and the two PGPD contract officers that police College Park, the calculations account for four officers on duty around the clock. Each on-duty officer has 60 minutes-per-hour available to respond to calls-for-service, conduct self-initiated activity, and conduct other law enforcement duties. Given that there are four officers on duty at a time, there is a total of 240 minutes available each hour (60 minutes multiplied by four officers) for law enforcement duties in College Park.
Step One: The total time spent on CFS included the collective time spent by all four officers on each of their respective calls—calculated from the time they were dispatched by Communications until the officer indicated to the dispatcher that they completed, or “cleared,” the call. The call time was added into the hour block in which it occurred, so if the officer was dispatched at 1045 hours and cleared the call 35 minutes later (at 1120 hours), 15 minutes was allocated to the 1000-time block and 20 minutes was allocated to the 1100-time block. For example, on Sunday from 0000 – 0059 hours, that the four officers as a whole, not individually, spent a combined total of 31 minutes (of their available 240 minutes) responding to calls-for-service.
This was also conducted for self-initiated activity, but was based on the total time that the officers indicated to the dispatcher that they were initiating an action—such as a traffic stop—to the time they completed it. Using the same hour on Sunday, from 0000 – 0059 hours, the four officers spent a combined total of 54 minutes (of their available 240 minutes) on self-initiated activities.
Therefore, from 0000 – 0059 hours on Sundays, a combined total of 85 minutes (of the available 240 minutes) was spent on direct law enforcement action in College Park. The
117 The workload analysis does not account for all of the other agencies that have jurisdiction in College Park.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 73 remaining 155 minutes were spent on other duties, including paperwork, general patrol, and community engagement activities.
Step Two: The minutes-per-hour occupied responding to CFS for the 24 hours in each day were then totaled. For example, there was a combined total of 750 minutes (of the available 5,760 minutes) that the four officers as a whole, not individually, spent responding to calls-for-service in College Park on Sundays.
This same calculation was done for self-initiated activities. Using Sundays as the example again, the four officers as a whole, not individually, spent a combined total of 637 minutes (of the available 5,760 minutes) on self-initiated policing activities in College Park.
Therefore, on Sundays, a combined total of 1,385 minutes (of the available 5,760 minutes) were spent by the four officers as a whole, not individually, on direct police work in College Park. The remaining 4,375 minutes were available to spend on other duties, including paperwork, general patrol, and community engagement activities.
Step Three: Similar calculations were conducted for every day of the week, to arrive at the average minutes-per-day spent on each of the two categories (CFS and self-initiated activities). Each of these daily numbers was then divided by 24, since there are 24 hours in each day, to arrive at the minutes-per-hour average for each of these categories. Continuing with Sunday as the example, there was an average of 31.25 minutes-per- hour occupied by CFS response and an average of approximately 26.5 minutes-per-hour occupied by self-initiated activities.
Step Four: The average minutes-per-hour for each of the seven days were added together and then divided by seven (the number of days per week) to arrive at an overall average minutes-per-hour occupied responding to calls for service and conducting self-initiated activities. Overall, the four officers spent a combined average of 29 minutes-per-hour on CFS response and approximately 26.8 minutes-per-hour on self-initiated activities.
Thus, the four PGPD officers in College Park spent a combined average of approximately 55.8 minutes-per-hour on direct law enforcement responsibilities.
Step 5: Based on the calculations in Step Four, percentages were calculated to generate a better understanding of how the four officers’ time is allocated. To arrive at these
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 74 percentages, the approximate minutes-per-hour on CFS response (29) and self-initiated activity (26.8) were each divided by the available total of 240 minutes each hour (60 minutes multiplied by four officers). Therefore, approximately 12% of the total time available to the four officers in College Park is occupied by CFS response and approximately 11% of the total time available is spent conducting self-initiated activities.
A similar percentage was generated to determine the overall percentage of time available to the four officers in College Park spent on direct law enforcement responsibilities. The average of approximately 55.8 minutes-per-hour on direct law enforcement responsibilities equates to approximately 23% of the combined four officers’ time.
Currently, College Park has an equivalent patrol force of 24.5 officers—with staffing to include 11.5 Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) full-time employee (FTE) contract officers, 11 PGPD FTE District 1 patrol officers,118 and two PGPD District 1 community police officers.119 Routinely, four PGPD officers are on-duty in College Park: two District 1 officers are on-duty in the two College Park beats and two contract officers are also on-duty. Although the memorandum of understanding (MOU) anticipates these contract officers will be supplemental officers, they often respond to back-up the officers dispatched to 911 service calls, and are often first on scene. They have also significantly increased the number of traffic stops and field observations in College Park, often resulting in arrests for warrants, DUI, and other crimes.
The average CFS workload – in minutes – performed by District 1 and City contract/part time officers, including back-ups, is displayed in the following table.
118 Assessment team interview with PGPD District 1 Major. March 8, 2017. District 1 staffs two College Park beats continuously. Considering days off and leave time the rule of thumb is that 5.5 positions are needed for each one around-the-clock staffed position. Hence the two District 1 beats require allocating 11 officer positions. 119 The Downtown College Park Management Authority (DCMPA) pays for two additional officers downtown during the peak periods of the week.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 75 Calls-for-Service Time (in Minutes) HOUR SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 0000 31 25 24 26 26 20 39 0100 48 21 21 26 29 29 37 0200 43 18 13 21 21 22 37 0300 39 13 9 11 16 20 39 0400 32 6 7 7 15 12 28 0500 25 4 10 10 12 16 22 0600 17 9 11 10 12 10 18 0700 14 17 12 19 11 22 18 0800 20 15 23 29 23 28 22 0900 27 22 24 27 30 25 22 1000 27 30 27 35 32 32 33 1100 28 30 26 33 32 33 31 1200 34 35 28 32 23 36 38 1300 45 33 41 31 37 45 29 1400 38 38 45 32 38 50 32 1500 34 40 33 33 23 51 43 1600 39 45 38 30 34 48 40 1700 28 57 54 39 35 45 43 1800 25 45 46 34 34 40 36 1900 35 39 34 39 39 32 30 2000 30 35 36 29 36 34 34 2100 27 31 36 29 28 37 28 2200 27 33 26 28 30 30 31 2300 37 29 22 27 32 35 38
From July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 an average of 29 minutes per hour were spent by contract/part-time and District 1 officers responding to calls for service in College Park. This ranged from a high of 57 minutes per hour between 1700 and 1800 hours on Monday to a low of 4 minutes per hour from 0500 to 0600 hours also on Monday. However, the highest periods for call-for-service response over a consecutive number of hours occur on Friday and Saturday nights—and into early Saturday and Sunday morning after midnight—which is typical of the calls-for-service workload in a college town where students party on weekends, and during the 1600 to 1800 hours on weekdays—during the evening rush hour—indicating calls related to traffic incidents.
The next table shows the average amount of time in minutes that District 1 and contract/part- time officers spent on self-initiated activity during the year.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 76
Self-Initiated Activity Time (in Minutes) HOUR SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 0000 54 25 29 24 24 57 69 0100 96 33 29 21 13 67 106 0200 85 31 19 26 19 69 99 0300 50 23 21 19 16 38 64 0400 19 13 12 14 10 16 24 0500 12 12 7 9 7 11 15 0600 6 5 3 4 4 9 6 0700 8 4 6 6 5 9 5 0800 10 10 15 11 12 12 9 0900 11 17 16 15 20 10 13 1000 12 22 20 25 23 23 20 1100 12 25 19 26 24 24 23 1200 15 30 22 28 22 20 31 1300 14 31 22 35 21 24 31 1400 16 25 33 31 23 18 30 1500 13 17 33 24 19 25 32 1600 15 20 22 17 17 15 34 1700 15 21 17 18 18 22 41 1800 22 32 40 37 31 35 43 1900 19 29 45 29 37 37 50 2000 26 31 38 30 40 41 39
2100 34 39 32 37 38 45 44
2200 38 50 39 37 39 59 41
2300 35 42 32 25 37 45 40
The average time occupied was 27 minutes-per-hour. The peak period for self-initiated activity was from 0100 to 0200 hours on Saturday morning, at 106 minutes of total officer time per hour. Based on the total of 240 available minutes-per-hour for the four officers, this means that 44% of the officers’ time was occupied by self-initiated activity. This is attributable to the fact that as the downtown bars close in College Park and students hit the streets, some may behave in ways that invite police scrutiny. Meanwhile, the least amount of time occupied by self- initiated activity is on Tuesday morning when it averaged just three (3) minutes between 0600 and 0700.
The next table shows the combined total average time occupied by District 1 and City contract/part-time officers.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 77 Total Average Time Occupied – Calls-for-Service Plus Self-Initiated Activity (in Minutes) HOUR SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 0000 85 50 53 50 50 77 108 0100 144 54 50 47 42 96 143 0200 128 49 32 47 40 91 136 0300 89 36 30 30 32 58 103 0400 51 19 19 21 25 28 52 0500 37 16 17 19 19 27 37 0600 23 14 14 14 16 19 24 0700 22 21 18 25 16 31 23 0800 30 25 38 40 35 40 31 0900 38 39 40 42 50 35 35 1000 39 52 47 60 55 55 53 1100 40 55 45 59 56 57 54 1200 49 65 50 60 45 56 69 1300 59 64 63 66 58 69 60 1400 54 63 78 63 61 68 62 1500 47 57 66 57 42 76 75 1600 54 65 60 47 51 63 74 1700 43 78 71 57 53 67 84 1800 47 77 86 71 65 75 79 1900 54 68 79 68 76 69 80 2000 56 66 74 59 76 75 73 2100 61 70 68 66 66 82 72 2200 65 83 65 65 69 89 72 2300 72 71 54 52 69 80 78
The total time consumed averaged 56 minutes per hour. Combined, the total time spent responding to calls-for-service and self-initiating activities averaged 56 minutes-per-hour an average of 23% of the available time. This analysis indicates a relatively significant capacity for officers to conduct free patrol and community engagement. There were periods in the week that required significantly less activity—for example, on both Monday and Tuesday from 0500 to 0600, officers averaged only 14 minutes-per-hour of on-duty activity, meaning only one officer would potentially be needed on-duty. On the other hand, days and times where there was significantly more activity—for example, on Sunday from 0100 to 0200 when officers averaged 144 minutes-per-hour—at least three officers with a total time available of 180 minutes would need to be on duty to handle the workload.
Each officer has 60 minutes of time per each on-duty hour. Therefore, at least three officers need to be assigned to work on Sunday morning from 0100 to 0200, when the peak workload
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 78 totals 144 minutes. The three officers, each with 60 minutes of time, have a combined total time available of 180 minutes. Therefore, 80% of their time would be consumed.
While there are no universally accepted standards for how much patrol time should be consumed by police activity, this information provides a guide for the number of officers needed and when they should be scheduled to match the workload. The number of officers scheduled is a policy decision and is based on how a community wants its patrol officers to spend their time. A community that wants some officer time devoted to community policing activities may schedule more officers than one that focuses only on calls for service response and self-initiated activity. Most staffing systems schedule more officers for the peak times to provide officer safety capacity.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 79 Appendix C: Local Police Departments in Prince George’s County
There are 27 incorporated municipalities within Prince George’s County, Maryland, by far the highest number of incorporated municipalities in any county in Maryland.120 Of the 27 municipalities in Prince George’s County, 22 of them have their own police departments. Some local departments, such as the Landover Hills Police Department, have a small jurisdiction of .30 square miles, serving a population of 500 people. With five sworn officers and one civilian support staff, the agency’s services include patrol, community policing and crime prevention, and it is assisted by Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD) and Prince George’s Sheriff’s Office for all other services.121 Likewise, the Forest Heights Police Department122 with a jurisdiction of .48 square miles and the Brentwood Police Department123 with .38 square miles also have five sworn officers and few civilian support staff. However, these agencies are considered full service agencies, although the Brentwood Police Department does not conduct homicide investigations; instead the Prince George’s County Police Department provides this service.124
In addition to the smaller agencies mentioned above, approximately half of the municipal agencies in Prince George’s County serve a population of less than 4,542 people. Many of these smaller jurisdictions also have small police departments that are not full-service agencies and contract with the PGPD. These small agencies include: the University Park Police Department which only provides patrol services;125 the Berwyn Heights Police Department, which provides patrol and investigatory services, but does not investigate murder, first degree rape, and armed robberies;126 the Seat Pleasant Police Department, which provides only patrol, community policing, and crime preventions services;127 and, the Edmonston Police Department, which provides patrol, community policing and crime prevention services.128 That said, there are also
120 “Municipalities: Prince George’s County, Maryland.” Maryland Manual On-Line: A Guide to Maryland and Its Government. September 29, 2015. http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/36loc/pg/html/pgmu.html (accessed December 1, 2017). 121 Assessment team phone interview with Landover Hills Police Department officer. March 3, 2017. 122 “Police Department.” Town of Forest Heights Maryland. http://forestheightsmd.gov/police (accessed December 1, 2017). 123 “Brentwood Police Department.” Town of Brentwood MD. http://brentwoodmd.gov/96/Police-Department. http://brentwoodmd.gov/96/Police-Department (accessed December 1, 2017). 124 Assessment team phone interview with Brentwood Police Department clerk. March 3, 2017. 125 Assessment team phone interview with University Park Police Department clerk. March 3, 2017. 126 “Police Department.” Town of Berwyn Heights Maryland. https://www.berwynheightsmd.gov/police- department (accessed December 1, 2017). 127 “Police Department.” Seat Pleasant. http://www.seatpleasantmd.gov/187/Police-Department (accessed December 1, 2017). 128 “Police Department.” Edmonston Maryland A Bridging Community. 2017. Town of Edmonston. http://edmonstonmd.gov/departments-services/police/ (accessed December 1, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 80 some smaller agencies—including the Fairmount Heights Police Department129 and the Colmar Manor Police Department130—that do provide full policing services.
In addition, there are municipal agencies within the county that serve slightly larger populations, ranging from 6,306 to 9,640. This includes the is Glenarden Police Department— which has 12 sworn officers and a jurisdiction of 1.22 square miles131—and the Bladensburg Police Department—which has 18 sworn officers and a jurisdiction of one square mile.132
The Bowie Police Department provides service to the largest individual population in Prince George’s County, serving 54,727 community members with 54 sworn officers.133 Additionally, the Greenbelt Police Department also serves a population of 21,972 and has a large sworn capacity of 55 officers.134 The Laurel Police Department serves a population of 18,501, but has the largest municipal agency in Prince George’s County with 70 sworn officers.135
As is also apparent, there is no definitive relationship between number of sworn officers and jurisdiction area, although it is possible to see the number of officers per 1,000 of the population that is currently allocated to each agency.
To match the current level of services, the newly formed College Park Police Department would need a total of 36 positions, 33 sworn and three civilians, summarized as follows: 1 Chief of Police; 1 lieutenant; 5 sergeants; 24 patrol officers; 2 detectives; and, 3 civilians. The Chief of Police and one lieutenant would provide executive leadership and command structure.
The number of civilian positions proposed for the standalone department is based on functionality and a contract with Prince George’s County for dispatch services, instead of having their own around-the-clock staff.
129 “Police Department.” Fairmount Heights Maryland. CivicPlus. https://md- fairmountheights.civicplus.com/203/Police-Department (accessed December 1, 2017). 130 “Police Department.” Town of Colmar Manor. 2016. Town of Colmar Manor. http://www.colmarmanor.org/policedepartment.html (accessed December 1, 2017). 131 “Police/Public Safety Department.” City of Glenarden Maryland. 2010. City of Glenarden, Maryland. http://www.cityofglenarden.org/indexca80.html (accessed December 1, 2017). 132 “Bladensburg Police Department.” Bladensburg, Maryland. 2017. Town of Bladensburg, MD. http://townofbladensburg.com/cms/public-safety/ (accessed December 1, 2017). 133 “Police.” The City of Bowie, Maryland. https://www.cityofbowie.org/150/Police (accessed December 1, 2017). 134 “Police.” The City of Greenbelt Maryland. CivicPlus. http://www.greenbeltmd.gov/police (accessed December 1, 2017). 135 “Police.” City of Laurel Maryland. 2016. City of Laurel, Maryland. https://www.cityoflaurel.org/police (accessed December 1, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 81 Local Police Departments in Prince George’s County
Officers per Sworn Civilian Jurisdiction Agency 1,000 Officers Staff Population Population Bowie Police Department 54 15 54,727 0.986 Hyattsville Police Department 40 12 18,000 2.22 Town of Upper Marlboro Police 4 1 800 5.00 Department Laurel Police Department 70 21 18,501 3.78 Capitol Heights Police Department 11 1 4,337 2.53 Greenbelt Police Department 55 14 21,972 2.5 Riverdale Police Department 21 3 6,956 3.01 Bladensburg Police Department 18 4 9,640 1.86 Cheverly Police Department 16 3 6,485 2.46 Mount Rainier Police Department 17 5 8,475 2 Brentwood Police Department 5 6 3,046 1.64 Glenarden Police Department 12 2 6,326 1.89 University Park Police Department 8 1 2,300 3.47 Berwyn Heights Police Department 3 2 3,223 0.93 Seat Pleasant Police Department 21 2 4,542 4.62 Landover Hills Police Department 5 1 500 10 Morningside Police Department 7 2 2,000 3.5 Fairmount Heights Police 4 4 1,613 2.47 Department Forest Heights Police Department 5 2 2,559 1.95 Cottage City Police Department 4 1 1,408 2.84 Colmar Manor Police Department 3 3 1,460 2.05 Edmonston Police Department 6 2 1,488 4.03
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 82 Appendix D: Notable Incidents Captured by Surveillance Cameras in College Park
CCN 2014-00002209 Following reports of a pedestrian struck in a hit and run accident, SOC conducted a video review pertaining to the incident. SOC provided video and images of the suspect vehicle turning onto southbound US Route 1 from the Varsity parking garage and traveling at a high rate of speed. The vehicle appears to make contact with the victim on the southbound side of US Route 1 in front of the Bank of America, does not appear to slow, and continues out of camera range.
CCN 2014-00005990 After receiving reports of a sexual assault, SOC conducted a video review pertaining to the incident. SOC provided video and images of the victim with the suspects in the College Park Shopping Center getting into a dark colored SUV. SOC provided vehicle tags and direction of travel back to Leonardtown Hall and video of the suspect and victim exiting the vehicle and walking together in that direction.
CCN 2013-00046839 After receiving reports of an armed robbery in the area of the Bank of America, SOC conducted a video review pertaining to the incident. SOC provided video and images of the suspect running towards Hartwick Road before crossing US Route 1 towards the area of Zip's rear parking lot.
CCN 2013-00017135 While conducting standard rounds, SOC observed and notified Dispatch of a fight in which an individual was knocked out and subsequently picked up by others, appearing to carry him away. SOC directed officers to his location to provide medical assistance. Following this, SOC conducted follow up reviews based on witness statements to develop suspect information and vehicle tags.
CCN 2013-00022583 After observing an individual attempt to remove a letter from the Shipley Field wall, SOC notified Communications and officers. SOC later provided video related to the incident. SOC provided video and images of the attempted theft and the four individuals walking towards Lot R3 before officers arrive on scene and take one into custody.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 83 CCN 2013-00036234 SOC notified Communications of an ALPR alert for a stolen vehicle prompting a high-risk traffic stop. Officers are observed interacting with the occupants of the vehicle and one male is taken into police custody.
CCN 2013-00042754 SOC notified Communications of an ALPR alert and tracked the vehicle to parking lot 1B, where the occupants left the vehicle. SOC provided information regarding the parked location of the vehicle for officers' awareness. SOC provided video and images of the suspects re-approaching the vehicle and entering, before exiting the vehicle again and walking towards Ludwig Field. Officers arrive at this time and the individuals attempt to flee while SOC updates regarding location and lookout. Both individuals are taken into police custody.
CCN: 2013-00052325 After receiving reports of a strong-armed robbery, SOC conducted a video review pertaining to the incident. SOC provided video and images of a group of 9 males attacking the victim before running towards Baltimore Avenue.
CCN 2012-00011752 After receiving reports of a burglary and possible sexual assault occurring in Cumberland Hall, SOC conducted a video review pertaining to the incident. SOC provided video and images of a possible suspect vehicle traveling from Regents Drive to Campus Drive, to exit the area via North Gate to northbound Baltimore Avenue. Tag cameras were used to provide a license plate number for the suspect vehicle.
CCN 2012-00014267 After receiving a threat of violence against the University of Maryland, SOC conducted a video review of the area and provided video and images of the subsequent placement of the suspect into custody. SOC provided video and images of the suspect vehicle arriving on campus and being followed by officers; following this the suspect exited the vehicle and was placed under arrest by officers at Cumberland Hall.
CCN 2012-00038140 While conducting standard rounds, SOC observed and notified Communications of a Controlled Dangerous Substance Violation. SOC later provided video and images of the three suspects engaging in the smoking of CDS, followed by an attempt to flee when officers arrive on scene, resulting in a chase prior to arrest.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 84 CCN 2012-00048475 While conducting standard rounds, SOC observed and notified Communications of two males near a PERT phone appearing to be fighting. SOC provided video and images of these and of officers arriving on scene to arrest the aggressor.
CCN 2011-00020929 After hearing a report of an Assault occurring at Anne Arundel Hall and a secondary incident in Parking Lot Z, SOC began searching for the individual and reviewing recent footage. SOC identified an individual matching the suspect description kicking at vehicles on Tulane Drive and reported the incident. UMDPS arrived on scene and identified the individual and placed him into custody.
CCN 2011-00020755 While conducting standard rounds, SOC monitors noticed an individual on the roof of Terrapin Trail Garage with a black handgun. SOC reported the incident, and following provided video and images of the individual and UMDPS' response.
CCN 2011-00021971 After a radio transmission indicating an officer on a foot chase followed by losing contact with the officer, SOC began searching for the incident. Once found, SOC began a review of the events and was able to provide video and images of the officer following two individuals acting suspiciously, the officer chasing and fighting with one of them, a handgun (the suspect's) coming loose from the fight, and the subsequent arrest.
CCN 2011-00029361 While conducting routine rounds, SOC observed and notified Communications of a bicycle theft in progress. SOC provided video and images of the suspects arriving on the scene, cutting bicycle locks, and leaving the area of the garage towards Commons where they were stopped and arrested by UMDPS officers.
CCN 2011-00032608 After receiving reports of a fight breaking out near Cornerstone Bar, SOC monitored the situation as routine. After PGPD arrived on scene and the individuals appeared to attack the officer, SOC advised that he needed assistance. UMPD officers arrived on scene and assisted in subduing and arresting the combatants. Following this, SOC provided video and images of the incident.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 85 CCN 2011-00038532 While conducting standard rounds, SOC observed two individuals testing the handles of all the doors. SOC provided video and images of the suspects traveling from multiple parking lots (16H and N5) prior to arriving in U5, and breaking into multiple vehicles. Officers responded and arrested the individual who admitted to a rash of vehicle break-ins in the City of College Park as well.
CCN 2011-00074272 While conducting standard rounds, SOC was alerted by radio of suspicious person and began to monitor this incident on camera. While monitoring, this incident was designated a Signal 13 based on video information. Following the incident, SOC provided video and images of officer interacting with the suspect and then attempting to place him into custody when the suspect attempted to run, resulting in the suspect and both officers fighting on the ground until the suspect was subdued.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 86 Appendix E: Methodology
On-Site Data Collection
The assessment team conducted a preliminary site visit with City of College Park officials on February 16, 2017, and then conducted a series of additional site visits in 2017: March 7-8, March 22-23, and May 22-23. In addition, the Police Foundation assessment team conducted two town hall meetings in College Park on July 25 and July 27 to gauge broad community perception. During the site visits, the assessment team conducted semi-structured interviews and meetings with public safety directors, police agency command staff, and city government officials. During the town hall meetings, the assessment team used structured questions to gain community members’ perspectives concerning public safety within the city. The two town hall meetings—which were publicized on the Police Foundation and City of College Park social media accounts and the City of College Park website, and were publicized by assessment team members with interviewees and neighborhood and business leaders— drew more than 40 residents. Between June and August 2017, the assessment team also participated in a ride-a- long with a PGPD District 1 officer in College Park, an informal PGPD “Coffee Club” event, a meeting of the College Park Downtown Management Authority, a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Assessment meeting regarding the “Trolley Trail” hiker/biker trail initiative, and a Big 10 City Mangers’ meeting).136
During site visits, more than 75 individuals were interviewed, including: law enforcement representatives from the Prince George’s County Police Department, the Maryland-National Capital Park Police Department, the Maryland State Police, the Metro Transit Police Department, and the University of Maryland Police Department; City of College Park government, business, and neighborhood leaders; and, City of College Park residents.
Resource Review
The assessment team collected and reviewed Part I and Part II crime statistics, calls-for-service, populations for comparable cities and other Big 10 cities, and police department models in other cities in Prince George’s County (see Appendix F: Tables and Figures). They also collected
136 The Big 10 is, “the preeminent collection of institutions in the nation, where the pursuit of academic excellence prevailed as the definitive goal.” The Big 10 includes the following universities and the cities in which they are located: University of Illinois, Indiana University, University of Iowa, University of Maryland – College Park, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Rutgers University, and University of Wisconsin. For more information about the Big 10, visit: http://www.bigten.org/school-bio/big10-school-bio.html.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 87 and reviewed departmental documentation from relevant police departments, including policies, general orders, and other documentation.
Survey Data Collection
In addition to the information collected from the on-site data collection and the resources reviewed, the assessment team administered a survey to gather community and merchant perspectives on the current level of policing and public safety services in College Park. In order to gather as many perspectives as possible, the assessment team conducted phone and email interviews with individuals whose names were provided by members of City Council and City officials, were present at either of the assessment team town halls or other meetings during the team’s site visits, or were referred by someone who had already taken the survey. More than 20 individuals were surveyed directly via email or phone. Additionally, more than 40 residents attended the town hall meetings where the same questions were asked and discussed. Finally, two versions of the survey were posted online—through SurveyMonkey— for community members and merchants. The online surveys asked the same questions, with an additional two questions tailored for merchants.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 88 Appendix F: Tables and Figures
City Part I Crime Totals137
Motor Total Total Total Aggravated Vehicle Violent Property Part 1 City, State Murder Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Larceny Theft Crimes Crimes Crimes
College Park, MD* 0 11 27 23 152 658 105 61 915 976 Madison, WI 5 86 226 529 1132 5611 246 846 6989 7835 Bowie, MD 1 4 25 154 120 575 61 184 756 940 Rockville, MD 2 24 36 29 105 899 49 91 1053 1144 Takoma Park, MD 1 5 25 23 126 405 32 54 563 617 Riverdale, MD 0 1 12 41 14 116 18 54 148 202 State College, PA*** 0 6 6 140 597 63 14 152 684 836 Bridgeton, NJ 7 8 122 121 396 563 19 258 978 1236 Towson, MD** 0 37 170 247 342 2308 181 454 2831 3285 Gaithersburg, MD 2 21 51 63 119 1292 71 137 1482 1619 Newark, DE 1 5 33 65 101 613 32 105 746 851 * Part I crime statistics provided by Maryland State UCR for 2015, most recent published report ** Part I crime statistics provided by university police only. ***Part I crime statistics provided by university police and larger county police.
137 Crime statistics used are from the most recent published data found on individual agency website annual reports and the FBI’s Unified Crime Reporting data tool 2010 US Census: https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/ (accessed December 1, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 89 City Part I Crime Rates138
Motor Total Total Murder Rape Robbery Aggravated Burglary Larceny Vehicle Violent Property Total Part Crime Crime Crime Assault Crime Crime Crime Theft Crime Crime Crime 1 Crime City, State Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Bowie, MD 0.01 0.07 0.45 2.81 2.19 10.5 1.11 3.36 13.81 17.17 Rockville, MD 0.03 0.39 0.58 4.67 1.71 14.68 0.8 0.14 17.2 18.69 State College, PA 0 0.14 0.14 3.32 14.16 1.49 0.33 3.6 16.22 19.82 Gaithersburg, MD 0.03 0.35 0.85 1.05 1.98 21.55 1.18 2.28 24.72 27.01 Newark, DE 0.03 0.15 1.04 2.06 3.21 19.48 1.01 3.33 23.71 27.05 Riverdale, MD 0 0.14 1.72 5.89 2.01 16.67 2.58 7.76 21.27 29.03 College Park, MD* 0 0.34 0.84 0.71 4.71 20.39 3.25 1.89 28.35 30.24 Madison, WI 0.02 0.37 0.97 2.26 4.85 24.06 1.05 3.62 29.96 33.59 Takoma Park, MD 0.05 0.29 1.49 1.37 7.53 24.22 1.91 0.003 33.68 36.91 Bridgeton, NJ 0.27 0.31 4.81 4.77 15.62 22.2 0.74 0.17 38.58 48.75 Towson, MD 0 0.67 3.07 4.47 6.19 41.81 3.27 8.22 51.28 59.51 *College Park has the fifth highest crime rate for the comparable jurisdictions.
138 The following table sorts the comparison jurisdiction by total Part 1 Crime Rate. The Crime Rate is calculated for crimes reported from law enforcement agencies per 1,000 population.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 90 Washington Area Jurisdictions and Comparable Big Ten Cities Information
Primary Local Policing Area Primary University Police Agencies Distance from (sq. University Student Median Agency Providing Nearest City, State Population miles) Name Population Age Demographics Sworn Services Major City 63% White, 14.3% African American, 12.7 PGPD, % Asian, 11% UMPD, MSP, Hispanic, .3 % Metro Transit Native Police, American, .1% MNCPP, PG 7 miles from College Park, University of Pacific Islander, County SO, Washington MD 32,275 5.68 Maryland 38,000 21 6% other races N/A MD NRP D.C. Madison PD, UW-Madison 78.9% White, PD, Dane 7.3% African County American, 7.4% Sheriff's University of Asian, .4% Office, 79 miles from Wisconsin- Native Wisconsin Milwaukee, Madison, WI 233,209 94.03 Madison 43,338 30 American 457 State Patrol WI 41% White, 48% African 19.7 miles American, 4.1% from Asian, 5.6% Washington Hispanic, .3% D.C., 27.3 Bowie State Native Bowie PD, miles from Bowie, MD 54,727 18.43 University 5600 40 American 65 MDSP, PGSO Baltimore
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 91 60% White, 9.6% African 17.1 miles American, 0.3% from Native MDSP, Washington *Universities American, 20.6 Rockville City D.C., 39.5 of Shady % Asian, 14.3% PD, MCSO, miles from Rockville, MD 61,209 13.51 Grove 4,000 38 Hispanic 59 MSP, Baltimore 49% White, 35% African American, 0.3% Native 6.5 miles from American, 4.4% Washington Washington Asian, 0.1 % MDSP, D.C, 35.4 Takoma Park, Adventist Hawaiian, 14.5 Takoma Park miles from MD 16,715 2.08 University 1044 38.5 % Hispanic 70 PD, MCSO Baltimore 32.2% White, 27.1% African Riverdale PD, 7.5 miles from University of American, 1.3% Riverdale Washington Maryland - Native, 3.3% Park Police, D.C., 31 miles Hartwick Asian, 50% PGPD, PGSO, from Riverdale, MD 6,956 1.65 Building n/a 30.8 Hispanic 21 MDSP Baltimore 78.9 % White, Borough of 136.5 miles 10% Asian, 4.4% State College from African PD, PSU PD, Pittsburgh, American, 4.4% PSP, 165 miles State College, Penn State Hispanic, .2% Ferguson from PA 42,161 4.56 University 97,500 22 American Indian 21 Township Baltimore 32.6% White, 42.4 miles 35.5% African Bridgeton from American, 43% PD, Philadelphia, Hispanic, .6 % Cumberland 102 from Asian, 1.4% County SO, Baltimore, Rutgers Native Rutgers 124.9 miles Bridgeton, NJ 25,349 6.18 University 66,013 30.3 American 78 University from NYC
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 92 PD, NJSP, NJ Transit PD
80.6% White, 11% African TUP, 16.4 miles American, 2% Baltimore from American County PD, Baltimore city, Indian, 5.1% MSP, 53.3 from Towson Asian, 3.4 % Baltimore Washington Towson, MD 55,197 14.15 University 22,284 34.4 Hispanic 1900 County SO, D.C. 50.8 % White, 16.3 % African 22.7 miles American, from 16.9% Asian, Washington 24.2% Hispanic, Gaithersburg D.C. and 42 Gaithersburg, .5% American PD, MCPD, miles from MD 59,933 10.2 n/a n/a 35.7 Indian 57 MDSP, MCSO Baltimore Newark PD, 82.4% White, New Castle 6.7% African County SO, 15.6 miles American, 7.1% DSP, SEPTA from Asian, 4.8 % Transit PD, Wilmington Hispanic, .2% University of and 62.4 miles University of American Delaware from Newark, DE 31,454 9.19 Delaware 23,009 23.3 Indian, 91 Police Baltimore, MD
Based on 2016 data, the College Park population was 31,491, with 53.1% males and 46.9% females.139 In addition to the long-term residents of College Park, the population includes the University of Maryland—College Park (UMD) students who live on campus— which is almost entirely within the City of College Park—and in off-campus housing within the city limits. Furthermore, as is to be
139 This number includes University of Maryland students living off-campus in College Park, however, not all are “permanent” residents. Population numbers used elsewhere in this report may not include University of Maryland students who are College Park residents.
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 93 expected of a city that aspires to be a “vibrant and prosperous top 20 college town,” the population is extremely diverse. In addition to the College Park residents, during the academic year many UMD students and faculty commute to College Park from outside the city.140 The following table summarizes the population and demographics of the City of College Park in 2016141:
City of College Park Population and Demographics Population 31,491 Demographics 59.9% White Alone 15.8% Hispanic Origin (Any Race) 14.3% Asian Alone 13.6% Black Alone 7.9% Other Race 3.9% Two or More Races 0.4% American Indian/Alaska Native Alone and Pacific Islander Alone Source: “Executive Summary: College Park City, MD.” Esri. 2016. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/Executive_Summary_4f07f252_f6da_4319_85b2_982721e6150e.pdf (accessed November 13, 2017).
140 The University of Maryland–College Park has approximately 38,000 students and 9,000 faculty and staff. “The University of Maryland.” University of Maryland. 2017. https://www.umd.edu/ (accessed November 13, 2017). 141 “Executive Summary: College Park City, MD.” Esri. 2016. http://www.collegeparkmd.gov/Executive_Summary_4f07f252_f6da_4319_85b2_982721e6150e.pdf (accessed November 13, 2017).
Assessment of Public Safety and Police Services in College Park–March 2018 94